Sitting of 22 November 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Widows
  Dr. King: I beg to present on behalf of some 32,000 widows and other citizens a humble Petition calling attention to the economic hardships, as yet inadequately recognised by the State, of widows, especially of very aged widows, of widows between the age of 40 and 60 and of widowed mothers.
  The Petition asks Parliament
  to consider giving help to the widows of England along various lines, which I will not enumerate but which include the demand that all widows should receive a pension at the age of 50 and that widows who do not work should not have to pay National Insurance contributions.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Sir Edgar Whitehead (Talks)
    Mr. Healeyasked the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his recent official talks with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.
    The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): When Sir Edgar Whitehead was in London passing to and from New York, I took the opportunity of having talks with him on a number of matters including his speeches in New York. These conversations were confidential.
    Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that Sir Edgar Whitehead has now recognised Her Majesty's Government as responsible for the affairs of Southern Rhodesia by appearing as a member of Her Majesty's Government's delegation in
    1374
    New York when these affairs were discussed at the United Nations, can the First Secretary say whether he pressed Sir Edgar Whitehead and made proposals for greater African representation in the Legislative Council in Southern Rhodesia and for the legalisation of Z.A.P.U. as the only representative national movement of the African people in that territory?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question as being correct. The constitutional position as betweeen the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia, especially under the new Constitution, remains unaltered. I am afraid that I cannot reveal the contents of my conversations.
    Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how, if indeed Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for Southern Rhodesia, it was possible for Sir Edgar Whitehead to appear as a member of Her Majesty's Government's delegation in New York?
    Mr. Butler: It is true that Sir Edgar spoke from the United Kingdom seat, but I do not see any other way that he could have spoken, and the fact that he did speak did a great deal of good.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Did Sir Edgar Whitehead tell the First Secretary, as he subsequently told the Press in Southern Rhodesia, that the British delegates at the United Nations "did not really know anything about the case"? Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate this, and would he not agree that it was very disastrous for Britain's name that we replaced Sir Hugh Foot by Sir Edgar Whitehead as our principal spokesman?
    Mr. Butler: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not represent the case at all. In regard to the alleged representations made to me by Sir Edgar Whitehead, I cannot reveal what was said in our conversations, but I would not accept any such stricture's on the British team.

    Constitution
    Mr. D. Footasked the First Secretary of State whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Constitution of

    1375
    Southern Rhodesia in order to give greater freedom to political parties and to individuals.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Except for matters affecting the position of the Queen and the Governor, the amendment of the present Constitution is a matter for the Southern Rhodesia Legislature.
    Mr. Foot: Arising out of that reply, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the African National Congress was banned in 1959, that its successor, the National Democratic Party, was banned last year, and that Z.A.P.U. was banned this year? How does he expect that any democratic constitution can function if organisations representing the majority of the people are forbidden to operate?
    Mr. Butler: The only observation that I can make, without interfering in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia, is that all these organisations were banned because they decided to take unlawful means for prosecuting their ends. If they had not done so, I do not believe that they would have been banned.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that certain responsibilities still rest on this House, and that if the Constitution in Southern Rhodesia results in the suppression of the parties of the majority, in the restriction of the liberty of individuals and in a situation which is a danger to the peace of a great part of Africa, surely it is time the right hon. Gentleman did something to secure a change in the Constitution which will provide for majority representation?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I do not think, especially since the new Constitution came into force on 1st November, that we have power to intervene in that way.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this country there is a very large body of opinion which is right behind Sir Edgar Whitehead and the very wise leadership which he is giving to Southern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Butler: All I can say in reply is that anybody who reads his two speeches at the United Nations must realise that Sir Edgar Whitehead is inspired by liberal ideas. I therefore draw the attention of the House to these speeches, so
    1376
    that hon. Members may draw their own conclusions.
    Mr. Healey: Would the First Secretary agree that, whether Sir Edgar has liberal ideas or not, the fact that he has not only banned the only representative African party in the State, but has made it impossible for any of the leaders of that party ever to operate in a political capacity again in that State, produces a situation of intense danger to the European and African populations alike in the Territory, and is liable to expose this country, which still has the final responsibility, to serious disrepute in world opinion?
    Mr. Butler: If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, I would not accept that these African members of this party are banned for ever. It was only a limited time, if I understand it aright. In regard to the rest of the situation, I sincerely hope, as do all people who wish to see progress in these matters, that there will be a resolution of these problems in Southern Rhodesia.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

    Working Party (Report)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the First Secretary of State if he will publish the report he has received from his working party of experts on the financial and economic aspects of the links between the territories of the Central African Federation.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The advisers, whose appointment I announced on 28th June, have reported to me personally and I do not intend to publish the advice which I have received from them.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the complexity of the problems and of the importance of having as many facts as possible in order to take cool decisions about them, would it not be immensely helpful to public opinion in this country and in Central Africa if it were to have the advantage of the information now before the First Secretary?
    Mr. Butler: There is a Motion on the Order Paper and there should be an opportunity for discussing these matters in the House. I certainly did not want

    1377
    a public inquiry. Any information which I can give to the House as a result of Her Majesty's Government's decisions or interim decisions I shall be very glad to give.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Situation
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the First Secretary of State what immediate action Her Majesty's Government is taking to prevent a deterioration in the situation in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not aware that the situation has deteriorated.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the First Secretary aware that the Constitution, which was, apparently, designed to produce deadlock, has in fact now produced deadlock? Does not the First Secretary agree that it will now be very important for the future of this territory to have a new Constitution which will allow the majority to have their wishes truly reflected? Quite apart from the need for a new Constitution, has not the result of the last election shown that the overwhelming mass of the people in the Territory are apposed to Federation, and how does the First Secretary intend to respond to that?
    Mr. Butler: I think that the first thing for the First Secretary and the House to do is to await the result of the election. There are still ten frustrated National seats on which we hope to have some results, and there is one upper roll seat now vacant which has to be filled. It would be very wrong for me to make any further observations pending the result of the election.
    Mr. Healey: Does not the result of the general election already show that it is dangerous futility to rely on a Constitution expressly designed to misrepresent the state of public opinion in Northern Rhodesia, and will not the First Secretary now take steps to implement the recommendation made by the Monckton Commission more than two years ago to produce an African majority in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I can take no step or any decision in this until I see the result of the election.

  NYASALAND

    Constitutional Conference
    Mr. Goodhewasked the First Secretary of State why the Convention African National Union is not presented at the Nyasaland Constitutional Conference.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Representation at the Nyasaland Constitutional Conference is based on membership of the Legislative Council. As the Convention African National Union has no such representative it was not invited to attend the Conference.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this party has considerable support in Nyasaland, so much so that the Malawi Party has found it necessary to attack its headquarters and members of the party on five different occasions, without any prosecutions being instituted against it? Even if representatives cannot at this late stage be admitted to the Conference, will my right hon. Friend at least see them himself and hear their views?
    Mr. Butler: These representatives have been interviewed at the Central African Office. They have submitted their suggestions in writing, which have been noted and taken into account by me personally. As regards seeing them, I have to bear in mind the variety of minority interests if I accede to the request of one section. Perhaps my hon. Friend will speak to me about this.

    Newspaper Article (Publication)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the First Secretary of State what action has been taken in Nyasaland against the persons responsible for the publication of an editorial article in the Malawi News of Friday, 21st September, 1962, calling for violence against the person of a British journalist, Alan Hart.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: This is a matter for the Attorney-General of Nyasaland. I am, however, making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter happened some time ago, and that there is considerable

    1379
    concern in Nyasaland whether the Attorney-General is prosecuting this sort of case as he might do? Will not my right hon. Friend have another look at this, because if it is allowed to go on unchallenged—a direct incentive to violence against the person by a newspaper—it will be thought that the Government are paying no regard whatever to law and order in Nyasaland?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am awaiting the report, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Without wishing to comment on the incident to which the hon. Gentleman's Question refers, may I ask the First Secretary if he will bear in mind that the Malawi News is performing a very notable service in trying to create a more stable and constructive future for Nyasaland?

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Education
    Mr. Swinglerasked the First Secretary of State what are the latest figures available in his Department showing the numbers of African children attending schools in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the proportion of children receiving some form of education, the public expenditure on education per child, and the fees payable where this applies, and the proportions of children staying on till school certificate level.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am asking the Governments of both Territories for the latest information, and will write to the hon. Member when this is received.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the First Secretary for that reply and the action he has taken, may I ask him if he would be good enough, at the same time, to assemble and publish the same set of facts for European children in these Territories and also in Southern Rhodesia, so that, side by side, we can see what is the extent of the gulf which has to be bridged in the provision of education as between white children and black children?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will look into that.
    Mrs. Slater: Will the First Secretary also publish this in the OFFICIAL REPORT,
    1380
    so that other people may benefit from this information?
    Mr. Butler: What I will do is to examine the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and do my best to serve the House.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Commonwealth Trade Centre
    Mr. Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will take steps to encourage the establishment of a Commonwealth trade centre in London.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is not aware of a widespread desire on the part of other commonwealth countries for the establishment of such a trade centre in London.
    Mr. Walker: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the success of the American Trade Centre in London, and perhaps at least consult with the Trade Commissioners for the Commonwealth countries to see whether this is an idea which would help Commonwealth trade?
    Mr. Fisher: Yes, Sir, of course; but my hon. Friend appreciates that new channels of trade do not necessarily increase the volume of trade. In fact, the Commonwealth Relations Office has not received any request at all for the establishment of such a centre.

  FAR EAST

    Malaysia (Federation)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he has now taken in respect of the formation of the proposed Malaysian Federation; and, in particular, what consultations he has had on this matter.
    Mr. Fisher: I have been asked to reply.
    The Intergovernmental Committee referred to in my right hon. Friend's statement in the House of 1st August is now engaged in its task. My noble

    1381
    friend Lord Lansdowne will be presiding over a plenary meeting of the Committee in North Borneo this week.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, first, if he can say about what time the report will be made by this Committee; and, secondly, may I take it that the Brunei Protectorate is fully co-operating in the preparations for this Federation?
    Mr. Fisher: It is rather difficult to say when the work of this Committee will be complete, but it is going well, and should, on present form, be complete, I hope, by the New Year.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister say whether Brunei is fully co-operating in the preparations for this Federation?
    Mr. Fisher: Yes, Sir, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 1st August, the Sultan has been told that Brunei's inclusion in Malaysia would be very welcome. Brunei has sent observers, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, to the Intergovernmental Committee. We are not forcing a decision, but Brunei would be very welcome if she wishes to join.

  EDUCATION

    Apprentices
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education how many courses have been arranged by local education authorities this autumn for the training and education of apprentices during their first year; and what number of enrolments were made.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): This information is not yet available, but I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as it has been received from local education authorities.
    Mr. Boyden: Last year there was some progress, but not enough. Will the hon. Gentleman consider reviewing the results of Circular 9/1960 and seeing whether we can get every local authority to participate in this form of training and education?
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend will take that suggestion into considera-
    1382
    tion. The situation should be clearer when we receive the replies from the local authorities, which should be very soon. They were asked to supply the information by 26th November.

    Training College Students (French Language Courses)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the course in French language and institutions at the University of Poitiers for training college students t whether similar courses are in operation at present; and what plans he has for organising similar courses at other centres abroad in other languages.
    Mr. Chataway: This six-month course in France was introduced experimentally when the training college course was extended to three years. In 1961, 75 selected students training to teach French attended the first course at the University of Poitiers at Tours. Another 60 started the second course at Tours last July. A similar course for 25 students was held earlier this year at the University of Caen. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce shortly the arrangements to he made for next year. He has no plans for similar courses in other languages.
    Mr. Boyden: I am sure that the House is grateful for that information and for the success of those particular courses in France. Will the hon. Gentleman consider arranging courses in German, Italian and, possibly, Russian in order that there may he a wider spread of interest in foreign language education?
    Mr. Chataway: At the moment, it is a very small proportion of the students at these training colleges who are studying languages other than French. Should the numbers rise, that suggestion will be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Boyden: Will the Minister take steps to stimulate progress? It is only by the growth of wider interest at the training colleges that there will be a spread of interest in other languages.
    Mr. Chataway: The demands of the schools probably are changing ill this respect, and the teacher training colleges are very responsive to those changes.

    Teachers (Exchanges)
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education how many teachers were sent abroad on exchange with foreign teachers in the years 1955, 1961 and 1962, respectively.
    Mr. Chataway: The numbers under schemes sponsored by my Department were 103, 90 and 76. The corresponding figures under the scheme for assistants, who take groups for conversation in their own language, were 440, 689 and 699. Assistants are mainly students, but include some teachers.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that exchanges with American and European teachers are of tremendous benefit to both foreign and British education and also in the interest of international friendship and understanding? Is it not regrettable that, although, as a result of an appeal some of us made, we have improved the financial conditions for the exchange of such teachers, the Minister has cut back the number steadily over the years? Will he look into the matter again and treat it in the generous way we are now beginning to treat the supply of teachers to the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the beneficial effect of such exchanges. I think that the cut-back he refers to is applicable only to exchanges with America. He will notice that the number of assistants involved in such exchanges is rising very rapidly.

    Holyhead County School
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Minister of Education when work on the extensions to the Holyhead County School are to commence
    Mr. Chataway: The authority expects to go to tender very early in the new year, and I hope that it will be possible for building work to start in March or April, 1963.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that accommodation in this large comprehensive school of 1,400 pupils, one of the largest in Wales, is grossly inadequate? Does he know that, nearly two years ago, Lord Eccles, who was then Minister of Education, promised
    1384
    me that the work would be started last year? Will the hon. Gentleman now give me a firm assurance that work will, in fact, be started in March as he has stated?
    Mr. Chataway: Extensions to the school were included in the 1961–62 major building programme, and they make up the first stage of a very complicated remodelling scheme which has involved a considerable amount of planning. Both my right hon. Friend's Department and the local education authority are aware of the urgency of the project.

    New County Secondary School, Cardiff
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the urgent need for a new county secondary school in Splott, Cardiff, in view of the conditions in which teaching is now being carried on; and if he will undertake to include financial provision for such a school in the 1964–65 programme.
    Mr. Chataway: I know that the Cardiff local education authority is anxious to replace the existing school, but it has other projects which it rightly regards as more urgent. I cannot yet say when it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to authorise this work.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the last part of that Answer mean that he has not made up his mind yet or that he has made up his mind not to do so?
    Mr. Chataway: The 1964–65 building programme has not yet been announced.
    Mr. Callaghan: In that case, may I press on the Minister, as strongly as I can, the urgent need for this work to be done? Will he review whether it is accurate that Cardiff put this at the top of the list? I understood that it was bracketed at the top of its list with three other projects, all of which are vital. Is it not a measure of the failure of the Government that they are unable to give priority and attention to four projects in the City of Cardiff which need urgent action, as is agreed by every educationist of all parties in the city?
    Mrs. White: May I, as one who lived in Cardiff for several years in the past, support what my hon. Friend has said

    1385
    and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look very seriously at this problem? The needs of the area are really urgent. Will he please do something about it?
    Mr. Chataway: I shall certainly consider what is said. There are two projects in this area which are needed for the reorganisation of all-age schools, and they would, in the ordinary course of events, secure priority.

    New School Places (Costs)
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Education what was the cost in 1961 of providing a new school place compared with 1951, taking into account increased building costs.
    Mr. Chataway: About £120 for a primary school place and about £210 for a secondary school place, compared with £135 and £242 in 1951.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Will my hon. Friend see that all concerned are congratulated upon this very welcome piece of Government economy?
    Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the satisfactory reduction in the cost of places, will the Minister now consider enormously increasing the number of places to be provided and expand the programme accordingly?
    Mr. Chataway: Since 1951, there has, I think, been just as dramatic a rise in that respect as there has been a decline in the other.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the economies have been partly the result of tremendously improved efficiency in the building industry and the work of his own Ministry, part of them is due to cutting back essential features in school construction? Will he consider very carefully the possibility of replacing some of the features which were cut out in the course of economies in many of the new schools which have lately been built?
    Mr. Chataway: I think that the known respect in international circles for school building in this country belies what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mrs. White: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, although it is true that
    1386
    excellent work has been done in many ways by the Architect's Department, what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has said is true also? Cuts have been made, for instance, in corridors, stairs and so forth, with the result that the time taken by children to change from one classroom to another has been very much increased because there is not enough space in the building. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are schools where economies have been achieved partly at the cost of speed of mobility?
    Mr. Chataway: When criticisms are made, they are very rapidly brought to our attention by Her Majesty's inspectorate, and action is quickly taken upon them.

    Expenditure
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Education what percentage of the national income was spent on education in 1951 and 1961, respectively.
    Mr. Chataway: I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave on 26th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), which showed that the percentage of the gross national product spent on education in the United Kingdom rose from 3.1 in 1951 to an estimated figure of 4.4 per cent. in 1961.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the record of the Government in this respect is a very fine one indeed?
    Mr. Chataway: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. White: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the change in the balance of the population between those dates made it absolutely essential that we should spend more of our income on education?
    Mr. Sydney Irving: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that these figures have no significance unless they are related to need? When they are related to need, is it not quite clear that the Government are at every stage of education a long way from meeting the need to provide full educational opportunities?
    Mr. Chataway: I find it difficult to follow that supplementary question. The total gross national product is not related to need. These figures clearly show that an appreciably higher proportion of our national wealth is today devoted to education.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend not be put off by the "sour-grapes" attitude of the Opposition?
    Mr. Callaghan: If the Opposition cannot shake the intolerable complacency shown on the benches opposite about this matter, I can assure the Government that the people of this country will. [Interruption.] Do not the Minister and his supporters realise that there is a grave problem here in a large number of older schools which have overcrowding and bad facilities and where a great deal more needs to be done, and that this insufferable giggling by the Government supporters is getting more than we can bear?
    Mr. Chataway: I do not mean to imply any complacency. It is expected that for the current financial year the percentage will rise again to 4·6.
    Mr. Holt: Is not this a lower percentage than that of any other nation in Western Europe with a standard of living similar to that of Britain?
    Mr. Chataway: That I most certainly do not accept. It is in fact a higher proportion than that of any country in Western Europe with the possible exception of Sweden.

    School Transport Facilities (Tenders)
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Education what instructions are issued by his Department to local education authorities about tendering for school transport facilities.
    Mr. Chataway: None, Sir; this is a matter for the local education authority.
    Mr. Browne: I am fully aware of that, but will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the local education authorities, with which, after all, he has close liaison, when they receive and consider tenders for local bus services, take into account the private firms in particular which run stage services in rural districts, bearing in mind that we want to
    1388
    keep our rural bus services in operation? They are already contracting quite enough.
    Mr. Chataway: I know that that is a consideration in the minds of several local authorities, but it is not for my right hon. Friend.

    Grammar and Technical School Places
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Education the average number of grammar and technical school places available per 1,000 of population in England and Wales, in Kent, and in the Maidstone educational division of Kent, respectively.
    Mr. Chataway: In January, 1962, the numbers of pupils in maintained grammar and technical schools and streams per 1,000 of the population in England and Wales, Kent and the area of the Maidstone Divisional Executive were respectively 17·8, 20·8 and 19·2.
    Mr. Wells: Could my hon. Friend differentiate between grammar and technical?
    Mr. Chataway: Not without notice.

    Minor Works
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Education what expenditure on minor works has been made in each of the past sixteen years.
    Mr. Chataway: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great need for a substantial increase in expenditure on minor works in those areas where substantial old church schools come under the authority? Unless there is an increase in these areas, it is manifestly unfair to the children living there contrasted with the position of their neighbours in other villages who are in better circumstances?
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is very much aware of the need which exists in those instances. My hon. Friend will, of course, have noticed that the minor works allocation for the current year has recently been increased from £10 million to £16 million.
    Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the £16 million is still less than the £21 million at which it once stood? Will he translate his right hon. Friend's enthusiasm into action by ensuring that the cut in the minor works programme is fully restored?
    Mr. Chataway: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in some confusion, because the previous figure related to an 18-month period and not to a period of one year.
    Following is the information:

    EDUCATIONAL MINOR WORKS

    (including school meals projects)

    Financial year

    Work done

    £m.

    1946–47

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6·5

    1947–48

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5·8

    1948–49

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7·4

    1949–50

    …

    …

    …

    …

    9·3

    1950–51

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6·5

    1951–52

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4·9

    1952–53

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6·4

    1953–54

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7·8

    1954–55

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8·5

    1955–56

    …

    …

    …

    …

    12·4

    1956–57

    …

    …

    …

    …

    14·0

    1957–58

    …

    …

    …

    …

    16·7

    1958–59

    …

    …

    …

    …

    12·7

    1959–60

    …

    …

    …

    …

    14·9

    1960–61

    …

    …

    …

    …

    18·7

    1961–62

    …

    …

    …

    …

    15·2

    Note: The figures relate to building work done and exclude land purchases, professional fees, furniture and equipment.

    Swimming Teachers Association (Campaign)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking in schools under his control to help the campaign of the Swimming Teachers Association of Great Britain and the Commonwealth to promote by the inculcation of swimming physical development, health, human life saving, safety, sport and recreation; and why he has not directed that its new film, "The Last Week in Summer", be shown in all schools under his control in pursuance of that campaign.
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend wishes this campaign every success and is anxious that school children should learn to swim wherever facilities are available. He does not direct what films shall be shown in schools.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister of Education direct authorities to show films of the type like that indicated in the Question rather than Hollywood and other films which pervert youth, promote juvenile delinquency, encourage bank raids, encourage adults in gunmanship and murder, and waste the time of our law courts? Will he reform his curriculum in that way?
    Mr. Chataway: I am sure that a number of schools will be interested in this film, but it is not up to my right hon. Friend to direct them as to the films that they should show.

    Swimming Pools
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education approximately how many schools have swimming baths or pools; how many of these are inside school buildings, with particular reference to those schools where classrooms are no longer needed for teaching owing to reduction of child population in the district.
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend understands that a number of classroom pools are being installed in various parts of the country and he is asking some of the local authorities mainly concerned to keep him informed about this development. Information about the number of schools which have swimming baths or pools is not available.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister agree that this is an excellent development and that particularly when schools have redundant classrooms through the diminished school population. It is excellent if schools, both voluntarily and otherwise, get to work in order to install the kind of cheap pool which is in operation in a school in my constituency and about which no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows?
    Mr. Chataway: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. We know about forty-six pools under construction at the moment.
    Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that swimming pools should be provided by the voluntary efforts of parents and old boys and not at the expense of the taxpayer?
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir; I do not think that that would be possible in all cases.
    Dr. King: In Hampshire, nearly three dozen such swimming pools have been provided by parent-teacher associations showing a keen interest in the school, with the local authority making provision for their maintenance and permanent accommodation. Will the hon. Gentleman obtain details of this and circulate them to other authorities?
    Mr. Chataway: I am aware of such cases, and my right hon. Friend is making inquiries from certain local education authorities.

    Primary Education (Inquiry)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Education what is the nature of his proposed inquiry into primary education; and by whom it will be carried out.
    The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I am considering whether such an inquiry is desirable and, if so, by whom it should be conducted. I hope to make a statement on this subject early in 1963.
    Mrs. White: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the last report of the Registrar-General, and does he realise that, after 1947, the highest birth rate occurred in 1960? Therefore, his problem in 1965, or that of his successor from this side of the House, which is more likely, will be intense unless something further is done to provide more teachers for these schools.
    Sir E. Boyle: We are discussing the question of teachers later. I have studied the report to which the hon. Lady refers. No doubt she has studied the interesting article in the National Economic Review on this subject. The important point is that it is thirty years since the last major inquiry into primary education. I am concerned not merely with the quantitative problem, but with the question of whether we are as well informed as we might be about what happens today in the primary schools.

    Sport (Wolfenden Committee's Recommendations)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Education what further steps he is taking to promote the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee on Sport.
    Sir E. Boyle: The Youth Service building programme for England and Wales in the current year has been increased in size from £3 million to £4 million to include projects providing facilities for sport.
    Mrs. White: While that is gratifying as far as it goes, is not the Minister aware that it is still a good deal less than was recommended by the Wolfenden Committee? Has he had any conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the other recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee, namely, that there should be a sports development council, a project which was very warmly supported by the present Parliamentary Secretary before he attained office?
    Sir E. Boyle: I assure the hon. Lady that all these matters axe under constant consideration by my right hon. Friends. At the moment, I am placing the emphasis on the development of sports facilities for young people. The level of grants towards the cost of sports facilities for adults provided by voluntary bodies is £400,000 a year. Next year, 1963–64, the Youth Service building programme will also include sports projects. We must remember that plans for new schools, training colleges and further education establishments in other parts of our building programme include facilities for sport. I assure the hon. Lady that we are keeping this matter in mind as part of the general capital investment programme.

    Teacher Training Colleges (Married Women)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if he will publish in HANSARD a list of the day colleges for the training of teachers which are making provision for married women with responsibilities for children of school age, and give details of the arrangements they make to enable such women to combine attendance for training with the performance of their domestic duties.
    Sir E. Boyle: I will publish a list of the eight day colleges specially concerned in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These were set up primarily for older students, including married women with children,

    1393
    and their whole organisation and timetable have been planned accordingly. The mainly residential colleges, which now take fairly large numbers of day students, also help married women in every way they can.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that there is accumulating evidence that he is losing potential recruits in this respect? A number of married women with young children would become teachers if the colleges had a flexible new programme to provide places for them. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this situation?
    Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman brings any evidence to my notice, I will, of course, consider it.
    Following is the information:

    Brentwood, Essex

    Chorley, Lancashire

    James Graham, Leeds

    Manchester

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    Sidney Webb, London

    Swinton, West Riding

    Wolverhampton.

    School-Leaving Age
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education when he will make a statement on the raising of the school-leaving age.
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot at present add to the statement by my predecessor on this subject in the debate on 21st March, 1960.
    Mr. Willey: But does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unless he makes a decision soon he will not be in a position to implement the recommendation in the Crowther Committee's Report?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the former Minister gave a very full statement on this subject. He recognised the conditions which had to be satisfied, and he ended his statement by saying:
    "This should enable us, before the end of this Parliament, to make a decision about the school-leaving age."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 48.]
    I still stand by his statement and I am sure that the hon. Member will be the first to realise that it is a question of
    1394
    timing here, and one cannot consider timing apart from the broad question of priorities.
    Mr. Willey: I also notice and I have previously said that if the Government delay the decision it will be for purely General Election purposes and no other.
    Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry, but I refuse to start electioneering now with the hon. Gentleman.

    Teachers (National Advisory Council's Recommendations)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the recommendations of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers and what action he has taken to alleviate the shortage of teachers.
    Sir E. Boyle: I have told the Council that the Government are ready to consider some further expansion of the training colleges. I am at present studying advice which the Council recently offered me about how this expansion could best be undertaken. Meanwhile, the emergency measures to which I referred in the debate on 30th July last are already taking effect. This year's intake to the training colleges, which was expected to be smaller than the first two intakes to the three-year course of 1960 and 1961, has in fact reached a new record of over 17,000 students.
    Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is too late to avoid the difficulties in the primary schools, but will he take steps now to avoid the difficulties we had with the first bulge affecting the second bulge which is now entering the schools? Does he recognise that this does mean a crash programme for more teachers?
    Sir E. Boyle: I certainly recognise that this is by far the biggest problem affecting the educational world at present and I do not feel complacent about it. I am considering very carefully exactly how our investment in training colleges can produce the best possible return in terms of the output of teachers. Nevertheless, I think it was a very good achievement this year that, with no young trainees leaving the colleges, we were able to achieve an intake of 17,000. It

    1395
    was far better than any of us envisaged when we started the expansion programme a few years ago.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the gravity of the position, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House and tell us what steps he proposes to take?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot add any further to the Answer I gave this afternoon, but I can assure the hon. Member that this is a matter I am examining urgently.
    Mr. Jennings: In examining the extension and expansion of training colleges, will my right hon. Friend look closely into the possibility of extending day training courses particularly with regard to education departments of provincial universities, where, I think, it would be much easier to deal with the shortage of teachers and their prospective training in the next five years, than the actual building of training colleges, as a short-term measure?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that I am well aware of the fact that when we consider this matter we must bear in mind not merely the training colleges but the education departments of universities as well.

  HOUSING

    Green Belt, Cardiff, (Planning Application)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the large number of families in Cardiff seeking homes who are unable to afford to purchase a house, he will give an assurance that the planning permission given to George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. to develop the Green Belt at Llanedeym, Cardiff, will in no way prejudice the application by the Cardiff City Council to acquire the land in order to build houses to rent.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir K. Joseph): I have already done so in the letter of 7th November giving my decision on Messrs. Wimpey's planning appeal. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the inspector will get details of the number of homeless families in Cardiff who are unable to afford to purchase a house and who are probably in greater need than any other section?
    Sir K. Joseph: All these considerations will come out at the public inquiry next week.

    Unused Land
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will ask local authorities who have large slum clearance problems to supply him with a report of all land standing idle in their areas, its ownership, length of time unused, and eventually planned use.
    Sir K. Joseph: My Department's circular 37/60, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Lady, asked planning authorities to inquire into unused land in their areas. In the particular case of the northern towns with severe slum problems, the Northern Housing Office which I have recently set up, will be examining all these matters with the local authorities.
    Mrs. Braddock: Yes, but will the Minister see that land which has been standing unused in a disgusting condition in my constituency is visited by some representative of the Ministry and that a full report is prepared and submitted to him about what its possible use will be?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, but I assure the hon. Lady that each site will be considered by my Ministry with the local authority to see that it is put to some use, housing or other.
    Mrs. Braddock: But how are we going to know—how am I going to know—what land has been looked at, what arrangements are to be made about it, and whether the land which can be used for housing will be tried, and what steps will be taken to speed up housing?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady and I share the same purpose, to increase the housing pace in Liverpool. If she cares to discuss this with me in detail I shall be glad to see what I can do to help.

  DISARMAMENT
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy the formation of a joint scientific research team to study aspects of disarmament, including methods of detecting underground tests.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): We are of course always looking for ways of making progress with disarmament. But I doubt whether the setting up of formal machinery to cover, one area of consultation and joint effort could give better results than the present system of frequent and intimate exchanges between the Americans and ourselves. These cover the problem in all its aspects, and ensure that the results of research done in the United States and here are co-ordinated.
  Mrs. Castle: But if we are in earnest in wanting to achieve an all-embracing test ban, ought not the Western Governments to be inviting scientists to contribute ideas as to how underground tests can be more effectively detected, and is it not really a scandalous state of affairs that a prominent seismologist like Professor Don Leet, the seismologist in charge at Harvard University, cannot get his ideas tested either by his own Government or by Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: Well, the question is simply the best machinery for the purpose. At present our scientists are in the closest co-operation with American scientists, and share all the results of our research and there are frequent meetings and almost constant consultation. I do not think that the setting up of a research team which would have to be permanently in Washington or London would assist the work. A good deal of the work of our scientists is done here and their results shared, and vice versa.
  Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach President Kennedy and find out how the ideas of this eminent seismologist could at least be examined and tested? Surely we should leave no stone unturned in order to get a test ban?
  The Prime Minister: All these matters are inquired into, but I think it is my
  1398
  duty to co-ordinate the work of British scientists and not that of American scientists.

  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Ministers of the European Free Trade Association countries to meet him to discuss the European Free Trade Association countries' relation with the Common Market and to clarify the pledges made to the European Free Trade Association and to strengthen Great Britain's position in negotiations with the Six.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think this is necessary. We are in close and continuous touch with our European Free Trade Association partners. A Ministerial meeting was held in Oslo on 22nd October, when all members reaffirmed their adherence to the London communiqué of June, 1961.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern now being expressed that our pledges to our partners in the Association are being devalued to a mere consultation? Surely they go further than that. Does the Prime Minister now accept that it would be impossible for Britain to go into the Common Market till the broad position of our partners, including Sweden, is in fact clearly established?
  The Prime Minister: It is a question of whether there should be a further meeting. There was a Ministerial meeting only a few weeks ago. There is almost daily consultation, and the position is absolutely clear, and I do not think it would add anything if I tried to change the words of the agreed communiqué.
  Mr. Gaitskell: If it is absolutely clear, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would explain to the House whether he understands the pledge that we have given to the other E.F.T.A. countries to mean that we shall not sign, or, indeed, initial, an agreement covering our entry into the E.E.C. unless and until the other members of E.F.T.A. have had their interests considered and their interests are properly safeguarded.
  The Prime Minister: That is perhaps a broad interpretation of the facts, but I do not think I can add to—nor, indeed, do I think it would be right to detract from or to add to—the words of the agreed communiqué only a few weeks ago.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is precisely the lack of clarity in the position which concerns some of us? The question is whether we are going to sign the Treaty of Rome—or, if he likes to take another question, is it that he is going to introduce legislation here, after signing the Treaty of Rome, before the E.F.T.A. countries' interests have been considered?
  The Prime Minister: What I am asked to do is to alter the words of a communiqué, or to interpret it, and I am not prepared, without notice, to do that. This is absolutely clear. It is accepted by the Ministerial meeting. The question is whether we shall have another Ministerial meeting. No doubt there will be one. There was one only two or three weeks ago. There is no doubt on this matter whatsoever.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not perfectly obvious that there is considerable doubt, which the Prime Minister completely refuses to dispel? Is it not highly desirable that there should be another meeting of the E.F.T.A. countries in order to clear up the point about exactly how Her Majesty's Government interpret their pledge?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The doubt is created by the cloud of doubt which the right hon. Gentleman puts over the matter. All the E.F.T.A. countries were perfectly satisfied and are satisfied. They have informed me, and I know quite well, that they are satisfied. No doubt there will be another Ministerial meeting. Meanwhile, there are the daily consultations.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister what reports he has now received from his scientific advisers on methods of verifying nuclear tests by sealed instruments.
  The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the
  1400
  so-called black box proposals put forward by three American and three Soviet scientists who attended the 1962 Pugwash Conference.
  Although I am advised that these proposals have a number of limitations, any idea that may reduce the gap between the Soviet Union and the West deserves careful consideration. It may be that these sealed instruments would reduce the number of unidentified seismic events in the Soviet Union, but they would not in themselves dispose of the need for verification.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is it not clear from what the Prime Minister has just said that if the Russians want a nuclear test agreement these black boxes can overcome some of their objections without in practice weakening the safeguards needed by the West? In these circumstances, is it not an important and urgent matter to look into the technical side of this black box proposal? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, answer the question as to what advice he has received from his scientists about it and what information he has received from the United States scientists about this idea?
  The Prime Minister: I do not want to delay matters, but I could give a full account of the technical considerations. I will try to summarise it if the hon. Gentleman wishes. A very large number of instruments would be required to make any real impact on these problems. They would, of course, present certain problems in respect of servicing and replacing them. That might, in a sense, complicate rather than simplify the process of detection and identification, merely because of the large numbers of sealed instruments involved and the large number of people who would be required to deal with them. There is also the quite difficult problem which can perhaps properly be summed up by what is generally called in technical jargon the question of how to deal with the problem of "spoofing", which means interfering with the operation of the instruments. All these are important questions which are being studied urgently by the American and British scientists. As I have said, we are anxious to get on. However, I can say that, if this instrument can play a

  1401
  rôle in bringing us any nearer to an agreement, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be only too anxious to make use of it.
  Mr. Grimond: When the Prime Minister speaks of verification, does he mean that even if a satisfactory method of verifying nuclear tests by sealed instruments were found, in the view of Her Majesty's Government we should still have to have facilities for on-site inspection in the U.S.S.R.?
  The Prime Minister: That is the present view, certainly.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether it is still Her Majesty's Government's policy, as stated by him in the House on 5th March, 1957, to make and test nuclear weapons in order that Great Britain should not be in a weaker position than the United States of America or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: The tests of nuclear weapons to which I was referring in 1957 enabled us to develop thermo-nuclear weapons and so to maintain our position relative to the two major nuclear powers. Our reasons for continuing to make and test nuclear weapons at the present time were fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the debate on 19th November.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does the Prime Minister recollect that on 5th March, 1957, he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) whether he would not suspend tests pending the outcome of discussions then going on about a test ban treaty, and he replied:
  "No, Sir. I should have thought it common sense to put ourselves in the position that we have been working for so long to attain, that we should not be in a weaker position than those other two great Powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c. 181.]
  How far does the Prime Minister think he has advanced towards achieving that improvement since 1957, and in what way does he think the coming test will contribute to its realisation?
  The Prime Minister: We have maintained our relative position.

  PROTEUS SUPPLY SHIP, HOLY LOCH
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, under the dual control system, he was informed about the departure of the Proteus from the supply base in Holy Loch after the United States of America had imposed the blockade of Cuba; and whether he was informed about and agreed to its plan of operations as part of the general arrangement for consultation between the United States and British Governments.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with President Kennedy concerning the removal of the Proteus supply ship from British waters during the height of the Cuban crisis.
  The Prime Minister: British naval authorities are informed whenever it is proposed that Proteus should enter or leave Holy Loch. They were also consulted about the area to which Proteus should proceed when she left Holy Loch on 23rd October.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not still the position of the United States that this country has no right of control or consultation over the actual firing of missiles from the high seas by Polaris submarines, and is that not part of the lack of consultation that was shown in the case of Cuba, and what does the Prime Minister propose to do to remedy the situation?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite a different question. The Question was about the sailing of the Proteus, and, naturally, all the undertakings and arrangements agreed to were meticulously adhered to. The hon. Gentleman's other question is about the use of nuclear weapons whether from submarines or land-based American bombers, or by any other means. In that case there is the general understanding, as the House knows, which I had with President Eisenhower and have renewed with President Kennedy, that we would consult one another before there was any question of using nuclear weapons in any part of the world.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the documents relating to the Polaris and the sailing

  1403
  of the Proteus are kept under careful lock and key in the office of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and for security reasons would it not be better to transfer them to the police station at Dunoon?
  The Prime Minister: I always watch with interest the way in which the hon. Member's mind works. His supplementary questions always seem to pursue the topic of the day.
  Mr. Reynolds: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether it is to be general practice that at times of acute international tension—which we hope will not recur, but I ask this question in case it does happen—the Proteus will leave British waters? If so, is not this likely to reassure large numbers of people who feel that such a vessel would itself be the subject of nuclear attack?
  The Prime Minister: I hope it will be general practice in periods of danger, which I hope will not recur, that the forces of the West will be fully prepared.

  COLONIAL AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Q.7 Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Secretary of State with responsibility exclusively for Colonial affairs.
  The Prime Minister: No. Sir.
  Mr. Healey: Without raising any question of the personal suitability of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—we all hope that he will soon be restored to health and that we shall soon see him again in the House—might I ask the Prime Minister whether he would not agree that the exceptionally heavy burden of work in the spheres of Commonwealth affairs and colonial affairs is too much for any single Minister to carry at one time? Is he aware that very many people both inside and outside this House feel that some of the recent events relating to British Guiana, Kenya and Aden might have been avoided had there been a senior Minister exclusively responsible for colonial affairs able to deal with them?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says
  1404
  in the second part of his supplementary question. The responsibility is that of the Minister and the Government as a whole.
  With regard to the main supplementary question, I think that for quite a long time there has been discussion about the desirability of amalgamating these two offices. There is a great deal to be said for it. I have not gone as far as that because at present we are operating by bringing them together at the top through the Minister, keeping the offices for the moment separate bat working much more closely together than perhaps they have been able to do in the past. When one considers that only in the last two years British Colonies with a combined population of 50 million have become independent, and now Jamaica, Trinidad and Uganda have become independent, with the result that what used to be in comparison an enormous responsibility has been reduced to one for about 17 million people, I think this tentative movement towards getting the two offices together is a good experiment. The close cooperation of the two Departments is already showing good results.
  Mr. Healey: Although the number of Colonies has been drastically reduced in recent years, the complexity and difficulties of the remaining colonial problems are as great as any faced in the past. Does not the Prime Minister recall telling the House that his right hon. Friend would be unsuitable for accepting responsibility for Central Africa because he was identified with one particular communal interest in the area? Is not that also an argument against his being made responsible for areas where there are majorities of people of non-European race?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I thought that what we did in the case of Central Africa was a step which had the advantage of placing all these territories under a single Minister instead of under one or the other of two Departments. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State was given an office of his own to deal with it. This is a wider experiment in the direction in which I feel sure we have to move. I think that it is best to make a start, not by trying at this stage to combine the

  1405
  two Departments, but by putting them under the responsibility of a single Minister. Great as my right hon. Friend's responsibilities are, they are not greater, for instance, than those of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is not part of the difficulty caused by the fact that the two Departments are not combined, which necessarily means an exceptionally heavy burden on the Secretary of State? Will the Prime Minister consider whether the time has not come—since he seems unlikely to separate the two again—when they should be properly integrated so that the civil servants can share the burden?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that steps to closer co-operation are being taken and we may at some point be able to take a further step. This seems the best way to start the experiment.

OFFICIAL REPORT (ALTERATION)
Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of incorrect reporting in today's HANSARD, c. 1303, in the fourth paragraph. The hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) last night made certain charges against me concerning the performance of my duties as a Member of this House—or, rather, my failure to carry out those duties. But I find that in today's HANSARD the context of what he said has been altered so as to withdraw the charges. There has, in fact, been a complete alteration in the sense of what he said. I think that the charges ought to be withdrawn properly and not in this fashion.
Mr. Speaker: What I am concerned with is the accuracy of HANSARD. Because the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) came to see me, I have ascertained that the text has been altered. I regret that error, because it is an alteration that ought not to have been passed.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not making complaint about corrections, for I have used this procedure myself and I think that it is a very good one, but I understand that these serious allegations
1406
against an hon. Member of lack of duty towards his constituency—incidentally, my hon. Friend is one of the most regular attenders at the House and was here until midnight on Tuesday—have been reported in the Press. Is it not appropriate that the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) should make a formal withdrawal of the specific statement he made attacking my hon. Friend in the exercise of his duty?
Mr. Speaker: What I am dealing with at the moment is the accuracy of HANSARD, which is my responsibility. I do not think that what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) says is a matter for me. I do not see the hon. Member for Market Harborough present at the moment. I ought to have said, when speaking to the House before, that, of course, I have directed that an erratum notice will appear in tomorrow's HANSARD.
Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that this is one for you. May I ask who altered the OFFICIAL REPORT? I have always understood that the practice of HANSARD is that no one can tamper with a report except the one who made it. Did anyone except the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) alter this report?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I am required to tell the House more than this at the moment. Our rule about corrections is on page 270 of Erskine May. They are permitted, in practice, if they do not alter substantially the meaning of anything that was said in the House. It is because it did alter the meaning that this correction should not have been passed.
Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we really leave the matter like this? This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and if the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) were here perhaps he would be prepared to withdraw the allegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was he told?"] I do not know.
Hon. Members: He should be here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is saying. I would be obliged if hon. Members would allow me to do so.
Mr. Gaitskell: There seem to be two aspects to this matter. First, there is the question of the allegation itself, and, secondly, the fact that HANSARD was altered and is now to be corrected. Somebody must have done this. You, Mr. Speaker, quite properly said that you did not want to say more at the moment, but it is not satisfactory to leave the position like that. If a point of substance of this degree of importance has been altered, it should not have been altered and, therefore, it is surely right and proper that if an hon. Member were responsible he should apologise and possibly withdraw the original statement.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me. I am fairly loath to say any more because, although I endeavoured to get hold of the hon. Member for Market Harborough today, I was unable to do so; thus he has not had any information about the report I have received from HANSARD. In these circumstances, I do not think it right or fair for me to say more today.
Mr. Paget: Since this is an unsatisfactory way to leave the matter, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that an alteration of HANSARD in a manner not allowed by the rules is a breach of Privilege?
Mr. Speaker: If that is raised as a complaint I will take 24 hours to consider it.
Mr. Hale: What is the position, Mr. Speaker, of a newspaper which, in good faith, reports an observation made under the protection of Privilege, when an action for libel is brought by the hon. Member concerned against it in respect of a publication which is not substantiated by the report of what took place?
Mr. Speaker: If and when my duty should require me to consider such a problem I shall do so with great intellectual pleasure.
Sir T. Moore: Would it be proper to ask if the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) warned my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) that he intended to raise this subject today?
Mr. Speaker: It is no good asking me. I do not know.
Mr. Hoy: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire,
1408
West (Mr. Loughlin) the House should know that the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr), having made this charge, did not even do the courtesy to the House of hearing the winding-up speeches yesterday, when he could have had an opportunity of withdrawing.
Mr. Speaker: There is no possible ground for raising a matter like that at this time.
Mr. Loughlin: I would like to make it clear to the House, Sir, that I raised this question with the hon. Member for Market Harborough last night, and that I have been considering it today, as you know. When I decided to ask you for permission to raise it on a point of order, I was unable to get in touch with the hon. Member. I must point out that after today there would have been no opportunity for me to raise this matter in the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Supply [1st Allotted Day]:
Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when debate will arise on an Opposition Amendment relating to National Insurance etc., Benefits.
Consideration of the Motion on the procedure authorising new routes for trolley buses.
TUESDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Debate on Public Investment, which will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper (Command No. 1849).
WEDNESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
THURSDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—A debate on the Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission for 1961.
FRIDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Debate on the

1409
Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition relating to Central Africa.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House when the Second Reading of the London Government Bill is likely to take place, and whether he will provide two days for that debate? Secondly, on behalf of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, may I ask him whether he can find time before Christmas for a debate on the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty?
Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill has been published only this morning. I can confirm that there will be a two-day debate on Second Reading, but without tying myself to a particular date. There might he more than the usual interval between publication and Second Reading, because this is a complicated business. I can make firm the sympathetic response which I made last week to a request for a debate on the Japanese Treaty, and say that I hope to find time for discussion on that matter before Christmas.
Mr. Wade: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there might be a debate on the Prerogative Instrument introducing increased pensions for those who served in the Armed Forces and for their widows. When will that debate take place and what form will it take?
Mr. Macleod: According to the precedents, there have not been such debates on similar occasions in the past. Also in accordance with precedent, the Warrant is not signed until the Royal Assent is given to the Pensions (Increase) Bill. What I have suggested is that tomorrow's debate might provide at least some opportunities for some of these matters to be raised and in the light of that we can subsequently consider the position.
Mr. Tiley: May I repeat the repeated request of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) not only that we should have a debate on the Japanese Treaty, but that we should have it quickly? Is he aware that the delay in discussing it is doing harm to the Government and to our trade in the West Riding?
Mr. Macleod: I have undertaken to find time as soon as I can. It cannot
1410
be for a little while, but it will be before Christmas. As the hon. Member knows, ratification is some months away.
Mr. Fletcher: When will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police, which contained a number of important recommendations requiring urgent consideration?
Mr. Macleod: Consideration has been given to that matter, but I cannot undertake to find Government time for such a discussion.
Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say who is to reply to Tuesday's debate on public investment, and whether we shall be given details about how this additional money which is to come from the Government in public investment is to be spent in various areas? Will whoever replies be able to tell us how much we are to get in the North-East for our various priorities?
Mr. Macleod: The main Government speaker will be my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I am sure that he will take note of the points which my hon. Friend has made and will reply to them as fully as he can.
Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman include in next week's business an arrangement to enable the Prime Minister to reply to Questions which are on the Order Paper today, which now have been delayed for ten days, and which relate to the Vassall Tribunal—Questions Nos. Q9, Q10 and Q12—because otherwise, with the way things are going, the Tribunal may have completed its investigation before those Questions are answered?
Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said, but it would not be appropriate for me, when dealing with next week's business, to reply to that.
Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition about a debate on the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty is less definite than what he said last week, and that this matter is causing concern? Is he not aware that there is great concern that there was not a debate before signature and that the industry is greatly alarmed at the way

1411
it is being put off week by week? Is he not aware that, if confidence is to remain, a debate must take place much earlier than he suggests?
Mr. Macleod: If my hon. Friend wi11 study HANSARD, he will see that the commitment which I have given this week is firmer than that which I gave last week. Last week I said that I was sympathetic towards the request and hoped to find time, but today I have given an absolutely firm indication that we will find time before Christmas. I will take note of what my hon. Friend says about the urgency of this matter.
Mr. Rhodes: What is the significance of the time of 21 days for which the Treaty has to lie on the Table? Why is the right hon. Gentleman delaying the debate until after that period of 21 days?
Mr. Macleod: The debate is not affected by that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a convention that treaties of this sort should lie on the Table for 21 days. In certain extremely rare circumstances, it may be possible, if objection is taken, to debate them. However, the key date is not that, but the date of ratification, which is some months away.
Mr. Short: Will the Leader of the House tell us the result of his discussion, which he mentioned last week, with the Minister of Transport about the possibility of a debate on a Motion calling for a suspension of the closing of railway workshops in the North-East so long as there is unemployment in that area?
[That this House regrets the British Transport Commission's decision to close down railway workshops and branch lines in the Northern Region of England, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission to withdraw this decision until the Government have carried out a comprehensive survey of the economic, social and industrial consequences of such action in the region.]
Mr. Macleod: I drew my right hon. Friend's attention to it. These matters would be in order on the business which I have announced for next Thursday, and I suspect that that is why the Opposition have chosen this subject.
Mr. E. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of his suggestion that Service pensions might be discussed tomorrow, the debate tomorrow will provide inadequate time for a very important subject on which many hon. Members feel strongly? Could we not at least have a full half-day, if not a full day, to discuss this very important matter?
Mr. Macleod: I will make two points on that, both of which, in a different context, I have made before. There have been discussions on Christmas Adjournments, and so on, but there has not been a separate discussion of this aspect when there have been previous pension increases. Secondly, I have said that we should see what opportunities tomorrow provides, and then study the position.
Mr. Jay: Is it quite clear that if the House does not debate the Japanese Treaty within 21 days of the laying of the Treaty, it is possible, if the House wishes, to take a vote on it when it is debated?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I understand that that is the position.
Mr. F. Harris: Is it intended to have a debate soon on Kenya? Are we to have an explanation of the dismissal of the Governor of Kenya?
Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend will study that, but it does not arise out of next week's business.
Mr. Reynolds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even two days on the London Government Bill will permit only about 24 Members to speak, although there are 100 Members whose constituencies are directly affected and at least 50 others whose constituencies are indirectly affected? Is he further aware that as matters stand the maximum size of a Standing Committee is 50 Members—presuming that the Bill is sent to a Standing Committee—whereas similar legislation for Scotland or Wales would be sent to a Committee consisting of all the Members from Scotland or from the Principality? Has he seen the Motion I have put down to amend Standing Orders so as to provide for the setting-up of a Greater London Standing Committee, at least to discuss this Bill? Could we have time to discuss such a Motion?
[That this House believes that Standing Order No. 58 (Nomination of Standing Committees) should be amended so that, for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to the counties of London, Middlesex, Essex, Hertford, Surrey and Kent, the Committee shall be so constituted as to comprise all Members sitting for constituencies in those counties.]
Mr. Macleod: I have studied the Motion. I do not think that it is practical, but in due course no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to develop his argument on Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Box: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will have an opportunity of discussing the Bill to deal with the protection of investors, which was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?
Mr. Macleod: I hope that we will be able to find time for the Second Reading of that Bill before Christmas.
Mr. Mayhew: May I ask the Leader of the House when we will have a debate on the Royal Commission on the Press, so that we know what is the Government's attitude to it? Will the Leader of the House also say when we can expect the White Paper on the future of television? What is holding it up?
Mr. Macleod: The Report of the Royal Commission on the Press was published on 19th September, and I have no information to give to the House beyond that.
I hope that we shall be able to publish the White Paper and the Bill before the Christmas Recess—in about a fortnight, perhaps.
Mr. Hirst: Arising out of the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), does not my right hon. Friend realise that a great deal of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is a matter of dispute, to use his own phrase, on both sides of the House? In those circumstances would not he both respect and honour the traditions of the House?
Mr. Macleod: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means. It is extremely rare to have a debate within the 21 days which have been referred to,
1414
and I have given a firm undertaking that the House will have an opportunity of discussing this matter before we rise for Christmas.
Mr. Hirst: In view of the misunderstanding, perhaps I might assist my right hon. Friend. He said that where there was a dispute in relation to a treaty it was a tradition of the House to lay it on the Table for 21 days so that a debate could take place to inform the Government. This is a matter of very large dispute, and the Government ought to be informed.
Mr. Macleod: Without continuing that point, I think that if my hon. Friend reads in HANSARD what I said, he will see that that is not what I said.
Mrs. Castle: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the desire, at any rate of hon. Members on this side of the House, for an early debate on the proposals for improving the accommodation of the House? Can he say when that debate will be held?
Mr. Macleod: No, I cannot give any indication. I think that there was a request yesterday that the House would like to discuss this at some time, and I responded to that, but there are a considerable number of subjects to he discussed and I do not think that we can give this particular one very high priority.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a week ago, on business questions, I asked him about the Government's failure to make a statement on the breakdown of the British Guiana Constitutional Conference, and he then promised to raise this matter with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Is he aware that no such statement has been made? Will he now give an assurance that a statement will definitely be made during the coming week?
Mr. Macleod: I carried out my undertaking and discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend. The position is that the White Paper has been laid, the parties concerned have adjourned for private discussion, and it is not the view of my right hon. Friend that a statement from him at this stage would be helpful.
Mr. C. Pannell: Following the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), that he is not prepared to give high priority to discuss accommodation, is he aware that the Minister of Public Building and Works has already given one answer at variance with that? Ought not the House to have some control over the Ministry of Public Building and Works? This is a job for the Legislature, in which the Executive should be told what we want. Is it not rather impertinent when Government business completely crowds out the work of the Legislature?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman has been listening during the last 20 minutes or so to at least a dozen or more suggestions on what we ought to find time to discuss. All those are regarded by those who put them forward, and quite rightly, as of the highest importance. The hon. Gentleman knows that this particular proposal is scarcely as urgent as some of those which have been put to me today.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister find time to discuss the Motion in my name and the names of others, relating to the procedure of the House of Commons which enables a Private Member's Bill to be defeated by another private Member simply saying, "I object", without having read the Bill?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is of particular importance in view of the number of private Members, of whom I am not one, who are bringing forward Private Members' Bills at the moment? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I shall bring in a Private Member's Bill later?
[That this House takes note of the power which at present enables one honourable Member to frustrate or postpone or defeat another Private Member's Bill by simply indicating on Second Reading his objection without giving reasons and without having read the Bill, and would welcome the reference of this matter to a Select Committee on Procedure for their consideration.]
Mr. Macleod: I have a collection of about ten different matters which, in one way or another, it has been suggested might be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. This is one,
1416
and in due course I would ask the Committee, after it has disposed of a matter presently before it, to consider the order of its priorities.
Sir P. Agnew: With further reference to the accommodation scheme, will my right hon. Friend say to which Minister further Questions about its details should be put?
Mr. Macleod: I think that in most cases they should be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works.
Mr. Marsh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of hon. Members who would like, as a matter of urgency, to debate the implications of the case in the High Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Scarman, when a Member of another place successfully pleaded privilege arising out of a thirteenth century peerage? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is a matter of extreme importance that we should remedy a situation which apparently means that there is one law for a small group of Conservative peers and another for the rest of the population?
Mr. Macleod: In any case, not next week.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MINISTERIAL MEETINGS)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the recent ministerial meetings in the negotiations with the three European Communities. I hope that it will also be for the convenience of the House if I publish a more detailed account of these meetings as a White Paper later this afternoon.
At the ministerial meeting with the European Atomic Energy Community in Brussels on 14th November, the Chairman, on behalf of the Six member Governments, and the President of the Commission made replies to my opening statement of 3rd July. The text of these replies were later published by the Community, and English translations will shortly be placed in the Vote Office.
Discussions between officials began yesterday with an examination of the

1417
Euratom Treaty, chapter by chapter. The next meeting of Ministers will be arranged through the deputies.
The ministerial meeting with the members of the European Economic Community was held in Brussels on 15th, 16th and 17th November. Agreement was reached on alternative arrangements for those Commonwealth countries which decline the offer of Association under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome. First, the opportunity to associate with the Community would remain open. Secondly, the enlarged Community would declare its readiness to negotiate commercial agreements with any of these countries wishing to do so. Thirdly, there would be a very gradual application of the Common External Tariff to all the exports of these countries. Fourthly, the Common External Tariff on tropical hardwoods, which are of major interest to Ghana and Nigeria, should be reduced from 10 per cent. to nil. Fifthly, it would be the policy of the enlarged Community to work towards commodity stabilisation agreements where practicable in the commodities produced by these countries.
It was agreed that an offer of association should be made for Aden with the addition of a protocol dealing with the export of petroleum products from Aden to the Community. There was a full discussion of the problems affecting Malta and the High Commission Territories. Ministers will consider solutions to these at a future meeting.
We discussed processed agricultural products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the first time. I was able to agree with the Community that its offer of a very gradual application of the Common External Tariff would be an adequate arrangement for some of the smaller items. I maintained our proposals for tariff reductions and duty quotas on others. Ministers will revert to this subject later.
Ministers also discussed for the first time the possible arrangements for mutton and lamb. It was agreed that the proposals of the Community for the application of the Common External Tariff by stages combined with the possibility of suspenson of the duty under Article 25 (3) of the Treaty of Rome should be studied further.
The Ministers of the Community stated that they were not in a position to
1418
discuss the agricultural finance regulation with us. A brief discussion did take place on our request for nil duties on newsprint and aluminium.
It was arranged that the next ministerial meeting will take place from 10th to 12th December, followed by a meeting from 19th to 21st December.
In Luxembourg, on 19th November, negotiations were continued with the European Coal and Steel Community. Ministers noted the interim report of their officials, who had not been able to conclude their examination of possible incompatibilities between arrangements in the United Kingdom for the coal and steel industries and the Treaty of Paris. The officials will continue their work on these subjects, together with two additional ones, a study of sea transport from the point of view of the pricing rules of the Treaty, and an examination of the level of the external tariffs on steel.
The next ministerial meeting will be on 15th January.
Mr. H. Wilson: In view of my past criticisms of the right hon. Gentlman, may I now congratulate him on his triumph in getting the abolition and remission of external tariffs on canned kangaroo meat and tinned rabbit?
As to the other part of his statement—first, in the matter of the negotiations with the Coal and Steel Community, will he say whether he is satisfied that those with whom he is negotiating are prepared to accept the present structure and policies both of the National Coal Board and the Steel Board, set up by the present Government?
Secondly, in view of the new deadlock which has arisen about the financing of import levies and the ultimate use of those finances, has he by this time represented to the Six the utter impossibility of solving problems of low-priced imports of Commonwealth produce and adequate prices for British farmers so long as they insist on having a single price system? Is he pressing for the two-price system that we have had for the last fifteen years?
Thirdly, in view of the strong attack that is being made both by the sub-committee of G.A.T.T. and by the United States Secretary for Agriculture on the whole agricultural policy and establishment of the Six, will he tell the House

1419
whether he still accepts the Common Market agricultural policy in the future as a basis for negotiations, or whether he will now use these attacks on it to get some fresh thinking done on agricultural policy?
Mr. Heath: On the first point raised by the right hon. Member, the trade in these three items is worth more than 6 million dollars to Australia in particular, and also to Canada In two cases, tariffs of 19 per cent. would be abolished and in the other case the tariff is 8 per cent. It was of interest to these Commonwealth countries and, therefore, we accepted that arrangement. This is only a very small part of the whole programme of processed foodstuffs.
As for the negotiations with the Coal and Steel Community, the examination of possible incompatibilities between the coal and steel industries of this country and the Comumnity's organisations is not yet concluded. We have accepted that at the moment there are incompatibilities between our own arrangements for steel, and the Treaty of Paris—in particular, with regard to the pricing system and also the control of investments. As for the question of the Coal Board, discussion of that matter continues.
We have not urged that there should be a two-tier system in agriculture to deal with the question between the United Kingdom and the Economic Community.
As for the right hon. Member's last point, and the speech made by the American Secretary for Agriculture at O.E.C.D., when we were discussing this at the end of July and urging upon the Community that arrangements must be made for imports from the food-producing countries into the Community, what we were doing was affecting not only Commonwealth countries but all the supplying countries in the world. We made our position absolutely plain, and that remains our position.
But it also emerges that with the American trade legislation there is to be an opportunity of negotiating about these problems. The difficulties affect Europe and the United States together, and this only emphasises the need to deal with these matters by some world commodity arrangements if they can be produced.
1420
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members opposite cheering, because that is part of the Brussels arrangement.
Mr. H. Wilson: We have always said that we want to see long-term commodity arrangements, but does or does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the strong criticisms made by the United States Secretary for Agriculture, especially in relation to a variable import levy, the level of internal prices and the general system of autarchy?
Secondly, does he or does he not accept the fact that the whole agricultural set-up of the Six is totally incompatible with the letter and spirit of G.A.T.T., as has been said by the G.A.T.T. sub-committee this week?
Mr. Heath: These matters have been examined in G.A.T.T., as the right hon. Member knows, by the Second Committee of G.A.T.T., which is the proper forum for discussing them. The question whether Europe will or will not IN autarchic in its agricultural production will depend on the price levels fixed and not on the machinery used for governing imports into the Community. That is why we place so much emphasis on the price level fixed for these agricultural commodities in the enlarged Community—including ourselves.
Mr. Grimond: As the success of our application to join the Common Market depends upon parallel success for the other E.F.T.A. countries, can the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether conversations are going on between these countries and the Six and, if so, between which E.F.T.A. countries and the Six? Has he anything to tell us about these negotiations and, if they are suspended meanwhile, when they will be resumed?
Mr. Heath: The position of the E.F.T.A. countries is that Denmark entered into negotiations for full membership at the same time as ourselves. Their negotiations are comparatively far advanced and about ten days ago, I think, they had their latest Ministerial meeting with the Community. The Norwegian Government have also applied for full membership. They have made their original presentation, and again, ten days ago, on the same day as the Danish Government, discussed the negotiations with the Community.

1421
As for the three neutral countries—Austria, Sweden and Switzerland—each has made application for association under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome and each has made its original presentation. The Portuguese Government have also made application to enter into arrangements with the Community under Article 238, but have not yet made their presentation.
Dame Irene Ward: In connection with the discussions on sea transport that my right hon. Friend is having, can he say whether our shipping interests are being put fully into the picture before any negotiations or discussions are opened on this very important matter?
Mr. Heath: Yes, we are in the closest consultation with all the interests involved in the coal and steel negotiations.
Mr. Oram: The Lord Privy Seal has confirmed the report that it has been agreed that there is incompatibility between the Treaty of Paris and the 1953 Iron and Steel Act, in respect of powers of control over investment and, I understand, the fixing of maximum prices. Can he assure the House that all that has been agreed so far is that these things are incompatible, and that he has not yet surrendered this country's powers in these matters?
Mr. Heath: There can be no surrender of this country's powers until the Act is altered, and that would mean after the approval of Parliament, at the conclusion of any negotiations. We have accepted that if we were to enter the Coal and Steel Community alterations in the Act would be necessary to deal with these two items.
Sir C. Osborne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the patience and courage with which he has defended British and Commonwealth interests in Brussels. Three times he said that there would be a gradual application of external tariffs. Can he say how many years that will cover?
Mr. Heath: Yes, from the time of accession to 1970 there will be five stages. The first, on accession, of 15 per cent.; the second, on 1st July, 1965, of 15 per cent.; the third, on 1st January, 1967, of 20 per cent.; the fourth, on 1st July, 1969, of 20 per cent.; and the last of 30 per cent., in 1970.
Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say what was the attitude of the Community to our request that Australian canned fruit should enter duty-free?
Mr. Heath: On the points of fruits, both canned and dried, and the remaining processed foodstuffs, we have not yet reached agreement.
Mr. Healey: On the question of processed foodstuffs, has not the right hon. Gentleman agreed that there will be a preference against the Commonwealth by 1970 in respect of 50 out of the 75 items concerned? Can he assure the House that on the most important question of dried fruit, canned fruit and canned salmon, he will insist that in one way or another the Common Market countries will provide Commonwealth countries overseas with outlets equal to those they now possess in Britain—bearing in mind the fact that some of these products are vital to communities of war veterans who have served this country—as well as their own country—well in the past?
Mr. Heath: We fully realise the importance of these items to the countries concerned, and we have made this plain in the negotiations. As I said in my statement, and as is explained in more detail in the White Paper, we have maintained our position not only over these, but also on the other important items.
As for the gradual décalage, the gradual application of the common tariff, that means that when we go into the Community, Commonwealth preference will disappear as far as Europe is concerned but will be maintained until 1970 against third countries.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some of us who while in no way abating our view that it would be a great misfortune both for Europe and for this country if we failed to enter the E.E.C., and while also not minimising the concessions which are from time to time obtained, nevertheless feel that the words of Mr. Orville Freeman might act as a useful corrective to the spirit of Llandudno and that we shall think none the less of him if he produces a good agreement in January or February rather than in December?
Mr. Heath: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks which he has made. I do not think that there is any difference between our desire in these negotiations and those of the American Secretary for Agriculture to ensure that there is room in the enlarged Community for these foodstuffs. That was the purpose of our long negotiations at the end of July and the beginning of August and that remains our purpose and would be our policy in the Community.
Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend referred to aluminium and newsprint. Would he confirm whether he is optimistic that major concessions will be made on these two commodities?
Mr. Heath: I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to go into the details of these rather complicated negotiations about aluminium and newsprint until we are rather further advanced. We have asked the Community to be more specific about their proposals in this respect and we are now awaiting their reply.
Mr. Gaitskell: While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy in not making too long a statement and in providing part of the information in the White Paper, may I ask whether he is aware that it is not satisfactory to hon. Members simply to have this opportunity, perhaps in a quarter of an hour or so, of putting questions on such an enormous range of negotiations as those covered by his statement? Will he consult the Leader of the House to see whether before Christmas, possibly after the next round of negotiations, we may have a further debate?
There are a great many questions which I personally should like to put, but I will restrict myself, because of the lack of time, to only two or three. As far as Mr. Orville Freeman is concerned, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what we on this side of the House are urging him to do, in the light of Mr. Orville Freeman's very severe criticism of the variable levy and his support for what the right hon. Gentleman originally proposed but then abandoned in respect of Commonwealth agricultural products, is to reopen those questions?
If the right hon. Gentleman is puzzled by this, may I remind him of the insistence on maximum variable levies and
1424
the assurance that exporters would retain a percentage share of the market? This is the sort of thing I have in mind. In the light of all this, is he aware that what we want him to do, supported by Mr. Orville Freeman, is to go back and to say that we must reopen these questions which appeared to be settled in August? That is my first question.
The second is a specific question on the countries which do not want A.O.T. status. Is it not the case that the opportunity to associate with the Community being continued is something which, in any case, is involved in the convention between the Six and the A.O.T. countries which have already joined and, therefore, that all that has happened is that this is now extended, as it was bound to be, to our Commonwealth members in the same position?
Thirdly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the negotiations on commercial agreements which are to take place with those countries may go as far as to put them in no worse position as far as tariffs are concerned than the A.O.T. countries themselves? Has there been a discussion about this? Is it the case, as reported, for instance, that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that they could not be put in such a favourable position? May I ask him whether it is not the case that the zero tariff on tropical hardwoods was proposed at G.A.T.T. two years ago and then rejected by Her Majesty's Government?
May I also ask him two other questions, one about mutton and lamb, which is very important. Is it permissible for Her Majesty's Government to continue deficiency payments in respect of these two commodities? Otherwise, the 20 per cent. tariff will obviously not be adequate for the British farmer. Finally, is he aware that Dr. Luns, in a statement in New York yesterday, said that there was an absolute deadline on these talks which lies in the British elections? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is very different from his assurance to us that there was no deadline. Will he therefore either contradict what Dr. Luns said, or admit that he himself was wrong?
Mr. Heath: I think that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the difficulties of reporting on negotiations of this size and this complexity. We negotiated from the

1425
Wednesday of last week until Monday with the three Communities, as I have described. On this occasion I adopted what seemed to me to be the most convenient form for the House by making a comparatively short statement and setting out the detail in the White Paper. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the right hon. Gentleman's request, but there are also two days a week in which Foreign Office Questions are down, and we reach a very large number of them. We can no doubt deal with many of the points which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise between now and the next Ministerial meeting.
Dealing, first, with his comment on agricultural policy, I explained to the House in the debate after our resumption following the Summer Recess the problem of making quantitative arrangements for a common agricultural policy which did not contain any quantitative element. When Mr. Orville Freeman asks that the Community should guarantee a percentage or the same percentage of trade to individual countries, he is, in fact, asking that the pattern of trade should be frozen.
Mr. Gaitskell: That was involved in the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal on comparable outlets.
Mr. Heath: This has always been the problem in these negotiations in arranging for comparable outlets. We have described them in a way which we thought would not lead to the freezing of the pattern of trade. But if the American Secretary for Agriculture is asking for a percentage to be fixed in that way, he is asking for a freezing of the pattern of trade. It was for that reason that we adopted the alternative approach of deciding by the price level what the internal production would be and, therefore, what the room for imports would be. That is important just as much for the Commonwealth countries as for countries such as the United States.
When we come to the question of the alternative arrangements, the Community explained, in the same way as it was explained to the Ministers of the Commonwealth, the difficulty of making individual trading agreements which have the exact content of association, because association under Part IV of the
1426
Treaty of Rome is based on a free trade area arrangement with the Community. It has been put forward in that form to G.A.T.T. and it has, therefore, been accepted that the commercial agreements to be negotiated cannot have the same content as association for those countries which are members.
Nor can they be in the same form as the arrangements so far negotiated for India and Pakistan, because the state of the economies of these countries is quite different from that of India and Pakistan. It therefore remains that the request of these countries, which they made at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, to be allowed to negotiate their own commercial agreements is accepted in the form in which we have agreed it in Brussels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about hardwood. At that time we did not accept it because of the particular Commonwealth interests here. It is agreed that, with our membership of the Community, the most advantageous thing for Ghana and Nigeria is to abolish this tariff. This gives them an outlet into the enlarged Community as a whole instead of maintaining the preference which they would have had in the United Kingdom alone. This means that they lose a preference here of 10 per cent., but they have an entry into the whole of Europe, and this they must balance out. It is second in importance, for Ghana's export trade, only to cocoa. As far as Nigeria is concerned, it is the sixth in importance, except for the items on which there was already no tariff.
There is no agricultural regulation for mutton and lamb and the Community does not foresee there being one by the possible time of entry for us into the Community. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which makes it impossible to have a deficiency payment system, and an arrangement is changed if there is an agricultural regulation which changes that particular arrangement. If we became members we would have full rights in drafting the agricultural regulation.
Dr. Luns was speaking for himself. He would not claim to be speaking for the Community and he was not speaking for the British Government, but any Foreign Minister is able to form his own opinion about these matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition

1427
often expresses opinions about the affairs of other countries. He is fully aware of the amount of time which exists before it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to have a General Election.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, saying that there is no deadline and that Dr. Luns is wrong?
Mr. Heath Mr. Heath indicated assent.
Mr. Gaitskell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.
On the question of deficiency payments, is he quite sure that they are not included in the agricultural policy and not inhibited by the general prohibition on subsidies under the Treaty? I forget the exact number of the Article.
Mr. Heath: I have expressed our view on this matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I do not want to detain the House for long this afternoon. I have not very much to add to what has already been said on this Measure, both on Second Reading and upstairs in Committee I am well aware that our business later this afternoon is to include a discussion on the affairs of Northern Ireland, which are of great consequence to my Department.
  I do not think that we left many loose ends at the conclusion of the Committee stage. In fact, after looking through HANSARD, I can find only one point to which I wish to refer. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) asked whether any compensation payments made under Clause 5 of the Bill would be liable to Income Tax. I have looked into this point and I understand that under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1960, they would be.
  I think that the House feels that B.E.A. has a very good record, with profits ever seven years as evidence of its general health and stability and that it will overcome its temporary setbacks of last year and return to a period of making a profit. I am sure that the House will have seen with pleasure, as I did, the news that a Trident aeroplane flew from this country to Rome in an hour and twenty minutes yesterday, a very remarkable achievement.I think that there is no disposition on either side of the House to question the high standards of B.O.A.C., but there is considerable anxiety about its commercial organisation. On this, I do not want to say more, because I think we, must await the report which Mr. Corbett is to make to me.
  I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for many useful suggestions which have been made during

  1429
  the course of our debates and for their co-operation, which has enabled the Bill to advance thus far so smoothly.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: My hon. Friends and I agree about the importance of this legislation and have no wish to hold up its progress. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this is a narrow Bill in the sense that it is purely a borrowing Measure. On Second Reading, we explored many facets of policy which emanated from borrowing powers. For my part, I have no wish—nor would you, Mr. Speaker, allow me—to traverse that kind of ground again.
  I think it important that we should understand, especially with the new powers that the Minister is taking to make advances to the Corporations to finance losses on operating account, that the sums for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking in this respect are not necessarily amounts which we think the Corporations will lose in the next two years. I was very pleased to see that Lord Douglas made this point in the B.E.A. magazine.
  Although B.E.A. will have the facility, when the right hon. Gentleman gets these powers, to borrow up to £10 million between now and March, 1964, Lord Douglas made it abundantly clear that the position of the Corporation is far more healthy than would appear to be the case if anyone imagined that it is to lose £10 million in the next two years.
  It is important that that kind of thing should be said. Those of us who are to agree to these powers being given would be very apprehensive if we thought that between now and March, 1964, either B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. would incur maximum losses to the amounts we are granting. That should be made abundantly clear.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that although both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. had a bad year, in common with most of the great airlines of the world, they have, especially in the case of B.E.A., a fine record of profitability. Indeed, in the period 1954–55 to 1961–62 they made profits of £12,900,000, with a net profit of £8 million, including interest charges of nearly £3 million, leaving £4,300,000. One is pleased to see in what was something in the nature of an interim report
  1430
  that Lord Douglas was making that he pointed out that in the current year—which is a year of great importance to all of us, because we want to see the graph rising after the disasters of 1961—he estimates that from April to September an overall profit of nearly £3 million was made.
  All this is very heartening, but we know that the worst period in the year is now beginning and the six months from now is the period in which passenger traffic falls away steeply. We cannot expect that the recovery shown in the first six months will be maintained in the second six months. We wish the Corporations the very best of luck. It is heartening to see that in the first six months of the financial year they have been doing very well indeed.
  In our discussions on the various borrowing Clauses of the Bill in Committee, we asked for information about the rate of interest at which the money is to be borrowed. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to tell us precisely although he intimated that borrowing had been at 4¼ per cent. and 4½ per cent. I do not know if he can enlarge on that. As he knows, we believe that the lower the interest rate at which the money is lent, the better results we shall get from the two Corporations.
  Mr. Amery: I remind the hon. Member that I said that the Corporations were borrowing at the current Government rate. At present, it is, I think, 4¼ per cent. in the case of B.E.A. and 4½ per cent. for B.O.A.C. It varies, of course, as the rate goes up or down.
  Mr. Lee: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was making the case that the lower the interest rates in this business the better returns we can hope for from the investment which we—not only the House, but the nation itself—are making in the work of the two Corporation's. Within the Bill, I must not discuss the question of writing off dead capital, but I hope that the point which was made both on Second Reading and in Committee concerning it has not been lost sight of by the Minister.
  I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal will depend upon the inquiry which he is now conducting into the affairs of B.O.A.C. I have suggested that it might be better to

  1431
  go far wider than the Minister has indicated, but he has not accepted that suggestion. We all hope, on both sides, that B.O.A.C. has now seen the worst of its problems and that the inquiry will show the directions in which constructive suggestions can be made to give the Corporation a better return in future years.
  I am sure that all of us hope that the action we are now taking will assist the two Corporations in the great work which they have before them as the nation's flag carriers, so that we again see not only their share of the traffic increasing rapidly, but also a valuable return on the money which the nation is expending on these two great airlines.
  4.32 p.m.
  Sir David Robertson: I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) about the excellent work which is done by the two Corporations. I have travelled for years by B.E.A. and with its predecessor, Imperial Airways, and on B.O.A.C., too. Their services are unequalled.
  I am particularly concerned with the excellent service which is provided between the principal cities in England and the Highlands and I rise to raise an issue which is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill, which refers to deficits. Unhappily, a deficit has occurred in these Highland services and B.E.A. has stated that it will have to curtail them unless it gets a subsidy.
  This year, the greatest increase recorded at any airfield in Britain was at the county town of Wick, in my constituency. The percentage increase in the month of August was 41 per cent. Orcadians, Shetlanders and Caithness people have taken to the air services to a much greater extent than people in many other parts of the country, because their other means of communication are not so good, and I am sure that the people of Ross-shire would do the same if they had an aerodrome.
  The service is first class. I can sleep in my own bed in London, get a plane leaving London Airport at 8.30 a.m. for Edinburgh, Glasgow, or thereabouts, have a hearty breakfast and be licking my chops when we come down at Renfrew or Turnhouse, having travelled
  1432
  and eaten at the same time. After waiting there, we go on to Aberdeen. After a halt there, I get into Wick at ten minutes past twelve, have lunch, do a good afternoon's work and come back on a plane leaving at 5.10, getting into London Airport in time to make a speech at the House if I succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
  I cannot stress too strongly how efficient the service is; it is excellent. It is a great regret to me to think that a community which appreciates the services as much as we do in the Highlands is faced with a threat of curtailment.
  I have seen the traffic increase. When I first became a Member for John o'Groats, we had the old Rapides, which could not pay even when they were full. The Corporation was nervous about doing so, but I pleaded with it to put on bigger planes. The Corporation did so and filled them, and then put on more of those planes. This horrible threat to curtail the services is something of which I must inform the House, because we must try to avoid it.
  One factor that increases B.E.A.'s deficit in the Highlands is that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority runs a private service rivalling B.E.A. on three days a week between Manchester and Renfrew, Glasgow and Wick. On three days a week, this private service is operated by Silver City Airways. In my judgment and, what is more important, in the judgment of many of my constituents, it is wholly unnecessary. All my constituents have to travel by the Corporation's services and they feel that the same thing should be done by officials and relatives and friends of those employed by the Atomic Energy Authority.
  The B.E.A. service is operated six days in the week. The aircraft leaves Manchester at 7.35 a.m.—I imagine that the passengers get breakfast on it—and arrives at Renfrew at 8.35. It leaves Renfrew at 9.5 and gets into Wick at 12.10. That is the same plane as I use, only I start from London and go up via Aberdeen to Edinburgh. It is the same connection. The aircraft returns at 5.40 in the afternoon, gets into Renfrew at 8.20, leaves at 8.50 and gets to Manchester Airport at 9.50 p.m.
  What could be better than that for six days in the week, outward to the

  1433
  North and back to the South? I say this with the greatest possible force to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because many of my constituents who complain about the private service are prominent citizens who use the regular services. It seems wrong to them and to me that another branch of Government service should resort to a private service, because the income from that three-days-a-week service might obviate any question of loss to B.E.A. and there would be no need for subsidy for that part of the North of Scotland.
  There is bound always to be a subsidy for the Islands on the West Coast, where the population is so much smaller than on the mainland. Here, however, a Government Corporation runs a first-class service, which all the rest of the people have to use if they want to travel by air, but the Atomic Energy Authority, in its majesty, decides to run an air service of its own, operated by Silver City on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, which are the peak days of the week.
  I appeal to the Minister to do something about this and to bring it to an end. I do not object in the slightest to the officials and their relatives from the Atomic Energy Authority travelling by air, but they should use the same services that I and everybody else use. The taxpayer cannot afford to meet losses which are quite unnecessary. The income from a full load going up from Manchester to Wick and return far three days in the week might make all the difference between a profit and a loss. It is all a question of turnover.
  If the argument is put forward that there is not enough room, B.E.A. is well capable of meeting the demand. It has met it continuously in the past as the demand has grown. This private service seems to me to be wholly wrong and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House, and particularly the Minister, will agree.
  I should not like to think that, because another Minister is concerned in the matter, it is not the affair of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. I say that it is his affair representing, as he does, the Members of the House and the public at large outside. I assure him that I will not be satisfied, nor will the people outside be
  1434
  satisfied, if they think that this kind of thing goes on. It is no wonder that B.E.A. is losing in the North when foolish competition like this is allowed to come from public funds.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to emphasise the importance of what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). We are perturbed at the future prospects of the air services in Scotland. We visualise the possibility of the rail and air services being closed down, so that it will be difficult to travel in that area by any reasonable form of transport and conditions will be as derelict as in the period of 1745. People may have to walk.
  I wish to stress the importance of this matter to the Minister, who has a responsibility for aviation in that part of the world. The traffic could be developed were there an efficient or even a half efficient air service. I am quite sure that what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will be endorsed by everyone who is concerned about the future of this remote area. We wish to help the Minister to remedy the position in which B.O.A.C. is at present. We should like to travel from Prestwick by B.O.A.C. planes. But it is impossible to hoard some of these planes because of the ridiculous arrangements which the Customs authorities have instituted at Prestwick.
  I know that there are a large number of people who would travel from the west of Scotland by B.O.A.C. planes and thus help to solve the financial problems associated at present with air traffic from that part. There are trans-Atlantic planes from Canada and New York landing at Prestwick at frequent intervals. But it is difficult to board them, especially the planes which come at the most important periods. I consider that there should be some arrangement with the Treasury to make it possible to extend the present limited Customs arrangements and enable people to make use of these planes. In this matter I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent constituencies in south-west Scotland. Such an arrangement will help to popularise what I believe would prove a developing traffic.

  1435
  I am sure that the Minister wishes to be helpful to Scotland and this suggestion would be supported by all hon. Members.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Before the House parts with the Bill I wish to say a word on behalf of the ordinary "man-on-the-ground"—the taxpayers and the residents who has to live near our airports. In such debates as this speeches are made by the experts and technicians and others who are vitally interested in the aviation industry, but infrequently do we hear what the ordinary man thinks.
  The ordinary man considers that the air traveller is a highly subsidised person. The airlines make losses. The collective losses last year amounted to £50 million, to which sum our airlines contributed about £15 million.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: I think that the hon. Member must have misunderstood the position. B.E.A. has made a profit for seven years, from 1954. The Corporation made a loss only last year.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: That is what I said. Of the losses made by air corporations last year our Corporations contributed over £15 million.
  Airports in other parts of the world are subsidised. Even London, Gatwick and Prestwick which we try to make a commercial proposition made a loss last year of over £1 million. Radar services and landing facilities, and so on, for foreign airports are provided by their Governments. The research and development which goes into machines and engines is provided by many Governments on a military budget rather than from straightforward commercial operations. Therefore, in the view of the ordinary man, the air traveller should move through the air with modesty and acknowledge with gratitude the help and money provided for his means of transport by the poor "groundling". Instead, we see them moving amid more noise and clamour and with more bombast. Those of my constituents who live near London Airport feel strongly about this.
  The increased loans which will be made available by the provisions in the
  1436
  Bill mean to the ordinary person that larger and more powerful planes will become available, and they will be noisier. I hope that the Minister can tell us that that is not what is intended for the future. But there are proposals for a supersonic aeroplane capable of travelling at 1,500 miles an hour to be provided at a cost of £150 million. This may mean more booms and bangs over Twickenham. I think of all the old aircraft which have been scrapped—the Brabazon, the Princess flying boats, the V1000, and so on.
  What advantage will be derived from having this great supersonic aircraft? Will it be scrapped in the future? The only advantage which I can see in having such an aircraft would be for businessmen who might be able to get from London to New York two hours quicker—if they are not frizzled to death when the aircraft re-enters the atmosphere at 1,500 miles an hour. This supersonic monster will have to take off from London Airport, as no doubt it will be owned by the B.O.A.C. We cannot move London Airport. We have already spent over £30 million on the Airport——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope that he will bear in mind that this is a Third Reading debate and we are dealing only with what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I appreciate that.
  The Bill will give the Corporations increased borrowing powers and no doubt some of the money borrowed will have to be spent on providing new aircraft. That means more traffic, and possibly noisier traffic, and, therefore, it will affect those people living near the airports May I ask a question of the Minister——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding between the hon. Gentleman and myself. It was the reference to London Airport that was perplexing to the Chair.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that you will agree that if, in future, the Corporations are to have larger and noisier aircraft, it will affect a great number of people. The Corporations will be able to buy

  1437
  more aircraft. Everyone expects them to be busy and I am only endeavouring—I hope within the rules of order—to point out that, in addition to the industry and air travellers, the provisions in the Bill affect the ordinary man in the street and alarm some people.
  Air travellers are a privileged class. From time to time I am an air traveller myself and I acknowledge that fact. The public want cheap travel to be provided by the Corporations. I do think that it matters whether air journeys are cut short by an hour or two. That is a marginal difference of which businessmen may take advantage. But the ordinary person wants cheap air travel. Surely that is something which the Corporations should provide in the future.
  I therefore ask my right hon. Friend, and those responsible in the Corporations, to spare a thought for the little man on the ground and for the air travellers who desire cheap travel. They should remember the little man on the ground who pays for the power and glory of the great Corporations which he subsidises.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) about the disadvantages of supersonic aircraft. I agree with him that they have their disadvantages, but I should like to correct one thing he said. He said that on re-entering the atmosphere people could be frizzled up by the heat. Supersonic aircraft flying at Mach 2·2 will still be within the atmosphere. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know how to calculate the temperature rise caused by the forward speed of an aircraft he would be advised to remember that the formula (v/100)2 gives the rise in temperature in degrees Centigrade.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not intend to bandy formulae, but the supersonic aircraft would have to rise to a height of 70,000 ft.
  Mr. Lubbock: In the case of the Mach 2·2 aircraft that would be about the right height, but at that height an aircraft is still within the atmosphere.
  I do not want to make a lengthy speech on Third Reading, but I do want to refer
  1438
  to what I think must have been a slight misunderstanding on the part of the Minister of something I said on Second Reading which is relevant to the Bill. I made the proposal that the capital of the Corporations should not be in the form of a number of loans at varying rates of interest. In the case of the B.O.A.C. there are about 25 different loans at interest rates varying between 2½ per cent. and 6⅝ per cent. I was proposing that the capital structure of the Corporations should be reorganised so that all those loans were redeemed and replaced by ordinary shares and that the Corporations should pay dividends on their ordinary capital according to the profits they make so that in a year where they had poor results they would not have to pay anything out.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but none of this appears to me to be in the Bill.
  Mr. Lubbock: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The increased borrowing powers provided for by the Bill are in the form of fixed interest capital. With great respect, I think that one must consider this factor, because there is some question whether we might, instead of having the increased capital in the form of a fixed interest loan, have it in the form of ordinary shares.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that that would be within the Bill. On Third Reading, we cannot put forward what we would like to see in the Bill. We are restricted to dealing purely with what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Lubbock: I am most grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Under the terms of the Bill we have the fixed interest capital. We are now appointing accountants to advise us on how the capital of the Corporations should be organised. That is one of the things Which they will have to consider. However, as I am out of order, I will leave that point.
  The hon. Member far Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said something about the internal services operated by B.E.A. He said that the Corporation operated two services to Scotland and elsewhere which were very comfortable and suitable for the routes on which they were operating. He said that various

  1439
  facilities were provided on them. We must be more careful about the facilities provided by the Corporations on very short routes. This is one of the ways in which the Corporations are wasting money. There are expensive meals and champagne on services which take only 1¼ hours, or even less. There need not be elaborate services on the routes between London and Glasgow and London and Belfast.
  One of the ways in which the Corporations have been wasting money is on this kind of provision. In these days everyone who travels by air should be treated as a V.I.P. There should not be these very vast differences in the type of services provided for different classes of traveller. It would be much better, particularly on internal services, if there were no differences in class.
  I welcome the increased borrowing powers provided in the Bill and I hope that the two Corporations will in future be able to operate on a more profitable basis than they have done in the last year.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I wish to return for a minute or two to the point that has been raised in connection with the services in Scotland to the Western Isles. These are exceedingly important in 'the life of the Western Isles. Without them we could look forward to a continuing decline of population and probably the final decay of the communities there. These services lose money. It has been recommended to the Government that B.E.A should not be asked to bear the losses incurred as a result of running these services. In view of recent developments on the railways, we are entitled to ask some questions about these services.
  If these services continue to lose money, if B.E.A. continues to lose money, will the same policy be adopted as that which is being followed on the railways, namely, that only those services which pay will be run? If that is done, the services to the Islands, particularly to the Western Isles, will come to an end. This would be a very shortsighted policy and a very uneconomic one, because the Government through other channels are spending fairly sub-
  1440
  stantial sums of money on trying to strengthen the communities in these areas, on trying to build them up, on trying to give them a means of livelihood, make them viable, and enable the people to enjoy a sufficient degree of comfort and amenities so that they will wish to continue living in the areas.
  If the Government are prepared to do that, they should be prepared, as a corollary, to take the steps necessary to provide proper services to them. As far as I know, B.E.A. is anxious to continue these services. In consultations we have had with B.E.A. the Corporation has always expressed a wish to continue these services and is very anxious to do so, because it recognises the social need of the area. If the Corporation is to be asked to bear the loss at a time when the services are losing money, there is a danger to these services.
  The Minister appears to be under an obligation to tell us exactly what he intends to do about them. I should like him to accept the recommendation that the Government should bear the loss in respect of these communities. I cannot see that that would cause B.E.A. to engage in a great deal of wasteful expenditure running services which were quite unnecessary. B.E.A. knows what is required. It knows the most efficient way of meeting the requirements. The Corporation would do that. Therefore, I do not think that the Government would be asked to meet what might be considered to be an extravagant expenditure. This is a necessary expenditure not only for the services, but if the Government's policy in regard to these areas is to be carried out properly. Before we leave the Bill the Minister should tell us what he thinks about these services up the West Coast of Scotland to the Western Isles.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Amery: By leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to what has been said. May I try to correct what I thought was a slight misconception in the mind of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee)? I think that he is still a little under the impression that Mr. Corbett's Inquiry is of a very narrow character because Mr. Corbett is himself a distinguished accountant.
  Mr. Lee: My suggestion was that instead of confining it to B.O.A.C. we

  1441
  should look at the whole of the aircraft industry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, although it is confined to B.O.A.C., it is a very wide inquiry indeed.
  Mr. Amery: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made his point clear. I gathered from his previous remarks that he thought the scope of the inquiry into B.O.A.C. was too narrow, but it is, as I have explained before, on a very wide front embracing both the technical and the management side.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) stressed the importance of the Highland and Island services. I do not want to add to what I said on Second Reading on that, but if the hon. Members will look at what I said I think they will find that I went out of my way to stress the vital rôle of these services in the life of the Highlands and Islands and the great importance which the Government attach to them. There is no question of their being cut out. There is a proposal before us made by B.E.A. that we should meet the loss it incurs on them. As I have said in debate in the House and in reply to Questions, this is something that I am urgently considering. I cannot give an answer here and now on whether we shall accept the proposal or whether we shall have to find some other solution for it. There is the whole problem of the administration of the airports in the Highlands and Islands which is a related but a distinct problem.
  My hon. Friend referred to the problems of the Atomic Energy Authority and its taking charter aeroplanes for certain purposes. This type of charter does not require a licence. This is a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority, and if my hon. Friend wants to pursue the matter further I would ask him to address any questions on it to my noble Friend the Minister of Science or his representative in this House.
  Sir D. Robertson: I did that in the first place. I have never raised anything in this House in the twenty-three years that I have been here without the courtesy of a letter to the Minister concerned. I did that, and I got a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer, indicating to me that his powers were un-
  1442
  limited and that this is how he was going to run it. I take an entirely contrary view. I am sorry that the Minister said that this was not his concern, because in answer to my question the other day he asked me to put down a specific Question. However, I have this opportunity now. I cannot see how the Minister of Aviation can dissociate himself from this. This is the Government. It is two different Departments of the Government, and one is cutting the throat of the other.
  Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend will realise that the Atomic Energy Authority has considerable autonomy in these matters. It is entitled to charter flights if it regards this as necessary and desirable. I must admit that I have not received sufficient grounds to challenge the decision. But, as I have said, matters affecting it are not directly in my Departmental sphere, and that is why I suggested to my hon. Friend that if he wants to pursue the matter further the Departmental responsibility is with my noble Friend and his office.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raised an interesting point about the possibility of overcoming Customs difficulties and making greater use for internal purposes of trans-Atlantic flights. I am not well briefed at the moment on this point, but it is one which on the strength of what the hon. Gentleman said I propose to examine carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) spoke about the serious problem of noise. It is one of which I am well aware and one which. I hope, will to some extent be diminished with the advent of the VC.10 aeroplane which, so far as I can see, looks likely to be slightly less noisy than the big jets have been hitherto. My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of cheap travel as against swift travel. One of the difficulties in this issue, which is canvassed from time to time, is that so far experience has shown that the operating economics of fast jets are superior—that is, they are cheaper than those of the older and slower aircraft. This is partly because the turn-round is much swifter, and if we had a supersonic aeroplane it could do the trans-Atlantic flight two or three times in the same day.
  Mr. Hunter: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the new jet airliners make bigger losses on the aircraft equipment already owned by the Corporation?
  Mr. Amery: I take the hon. Gentle man's point. I was simply saying that the operating economics of the swifter aircraft tend to be superior and cheaper. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, that is where we are in a certain dilemma. If we stick to the old aircraft when other lines are taking the modern ones we tend, of course, to lose traffic to our competitors. This is the dilemma. Once one airline embarks upon a superior new type of aeroplane it is very difficult for the others not to follow suit, and ail market research suggests that what passengers really want is swiftness and speed above all. They may be wrong. But that seems to be the way they operate. In many ways it was more comfortable travelling in the old-fashioned type of motor car from which one could get out with one's hat on, if one wore a hat, and get out frontwards instead of backwards. People do not want that sort of car any more and one has to cater for the travelling Public's taste.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I think my right hon. Friend would agree that experience shows that this cheap travel fills the aircraft whereas many of the jets are going half empty.
  Mr. Amery: As my hon. Friend probably knows, B.O.A.C. has calculated that, but if it were to reduce its fares by 20 per cent. it would have to increase the passenger load by 25 per cent. to break even, so it is not very simple. This is where the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) may run into difficulty. With passenger loads as they are today, to convert them all to tourist class, that is to say to reduce the fares of what is now about a quarter of the ordinary aircraft load, would perhaps run one into even great financial loss under present conditions.
  Mr. Lubbock: If the Minister really wanted to do this, would it not save a great deal in duplication of operating expenditure in terms of cabin staff and the separate facilities which at present have to be provided for first-class services which are operating in B.O.A.C. at much lower load factors than the tourist class?
  Mr. Amery: I am advised that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman made the point before in Second Reading, and I am advised that the gain to the Corporation outweighs whatever expense and additional overheads there may be. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the make up of the capital structure of the Corporation. This is no doubt a point that Mr. Corbett can consider. It has been made before. It would be difficult in present circumstances for B.O.A.C. to raise equity capital in the market, if that is what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I think that this is a matter which can best be left to the accountant's inquiry.
  I think that I have covered the main points that have been raised, and I do not want to delay the House beyond expressing my gratitude and the Government's for the ready co-operation which we have had from both sides of the House in receiving support for what is, after all a request for a very sizeable sum of money, although, I hope, as the hon. Member for Newton said, that not a great deal of it will have to be spent on financing a deficit. I look forward to seeing the greater part of the expenditure used on constructive re-equipment of the Corporations with more modern aircraft to put them in an increasingly strong and competitive position in the airline markets of the world.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  TOWYN TREWAN COMMON BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.9 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is not often that the Air Ministry has occasion to come to the House for legislation, but I am glad to say that this is a comparatively simple Bill, concerned with the extension of an aerodrome, and I therefore trust that the House will cooperate with me and live up to a motto famous in the Royal Air Force, "With speed to the mark."
  The airfield at Valley, in Anglesey, is equipped with all the facilities for training

  1445
  in the use of modern weapons which are now in service with the latest types of air-craft, but the main runway must be extended before the airfield can be used in complete safety by those aircraft. The airfield was built during the 1939–45 war, largely on common land, which was then under requisition. After the war, it was decided to keep the airfield on a long-term basis, and common and public rights over that part of the common that had been enclosed were extinguished by the Towyn Trewan Common Act, 1950. The runway extension now needed falls partly on land of which the common and public rights were extinguished in 1950 and partly on land still subject to these rights. This Bill is necessary to enable the extension of the runway to be completed.
  In preparing to extinguish these rights, we have consulted the Anglesey County Council—which is the local planning authority—the conservators of the common, the Nature Conservancy, the Society for the Preservation of Rural Wales, and the various amenity bodies which have an interest in the area, including the Commons Preservation Society. None of them has raised any objection in principle to the Bill, and we have been able to meet the points of interest that have been raised. We have, indeed, received much co-operation and assistance, particularly from the conservators of the common and the Anglesey County Council, for which I should like to express my appreciation.
  The Bill is relatively simple. Its main purpose is to extinguish the rights of common and other rights over approximately 55 acres of land which we need for the runway extension; and to provide for the payment of compensation. This is the purpose of Clauses 1, 3 and 4. It will be necessary to carry storm water from the runway to the nearest outlet. This will be done by building a drain across what will be common land to an outlet in the nearby River Crigyll, but since the drain will be covered after construction, it will not interfere with the general enjoyment of the common and it is not necessary to extinguish any rights over the line of the drain. Provision has, however, been made in Clause 2 for the temporary interference with the exercise of rights during the construction and subsequent maintenance of the drain, and the subject of compensation on this account is covered in Clause 3.
  1446
  We know of no private rights of way over the land to be enclosed for the runway extension but, against the possibility that some may exist, Clause 4 provides for them to be extinguished; and for further compensation for any consequent loss or damage if claimed within a year of the passing of the Bill.
  The land that needs to be enclosed for the runway extension runs alongside the River Crigyll on the southern end of the common and, without express provision in the Bill, there will be no access between the remaining parts of the common to the east and west of the extended runway. Clause 5, therefore, covers the use of a track which will provide for such access. It also preserves a right of access for the Gwynedd River Board, so that the Board can carry out its duties in relation to the River Crigyll.
  As in other modern airfields, subsidiary works outside the airfield boundary are necessary, such as navigational and landing aids, lights, and similar minor works, which will be required in the future. Such installations do not interfere with the general enjoyment of the common and do not, therefore, justify extinguishing common and other rights, but legal provision for such additional works is essential. That is the purpose of Clause 6, which extends the power of the conservators to allow such works within the definition given, to receive financial consideration from time to time, and to apply any such moneys to the improvement and protection of other rights of the common.
  We are sorry that we have to make even this relatively small encroachment on the common, but I assure the House that we have limited our proposals to the hare minimum that is essential if this airfield, which brings a good measure of civilian employment to the island and plays a considerable part in its economy, is to continue to make a useful contribution to our national defence.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Air for the clear explanation he has given us of the Bill. I have more than a passing interest, because Towyn Trewan is in my constituency, and not many miles from my home.
  As the hon. Gentleman has said, a large part of the common was acquired

  1447
  at the commencement of the last war for the purposes of the Royal Air Force—between 650 and 700 acres, I think—and the Towyn Trewan Common Act, 1950 extinguished the common rights in respect of the area, made arangements for the payment of compensation, and so on. Therefore, it would probably be accurate to say that this Measure is an extension of the 1950 Act.
  The Royal Air Force wants to extend its main runway. The Under-Secretary did not say precisely by how much the runway is to be extended, and perhaps he will tell the House just why this work is required, and what are the Air Force and military reasons for it. In order to extend the runway, the Royal Air Force needs more of the common land, and this Bill provides for the acquisition of the additional acreage.
  As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is no formal objection to the Bill from the County Council, the Valley Rural District Council, or the parish councils concerned. There are three parish councils involved—Llanfair-yn-neubwll, Llechylched and Llanfaelog—and I understand that all three are agreeable to the Bill's provisions.
  I am informed that the attitude of the county council remains as it was when the previous Act was passed in 1950, and perhaps I might read the resolutions that it passed at the time, as they are relevant to the present as well. The first resolution was in the following terms:
  "That this Council welcome the Air Ministry's decision to make the R.A.F. Station at Valley a permanent Station and their intention to proceed forthwith with the erection of permanent buildings for the accommodation of R.A.F. personnel together with Married Quarters for Officers and Airmen; they also express their gratification with the statement contained in the recent White Paper on 'Wales' that the aerodrome is available as an emergency and diversionary airport for regular civil air services."
  The availability there mentioned was one of the reasons why the county council supported the 1950 Act, and I think that the Under-Secretary should tell us what the present position is in relation to the use of the Valley aerodrome for civil purposes. I do not want to depart from the substance of the Bill, but in North Wales we are very ill-served in respect of civil air services, and any indication that facilities are available at
  1448
  Valley would be welcomed by the people of the area. The other resolution stated:
  "That this Council agree that it is not practicable lo reprovide elsewhere the part of Tywyn Trewan Common required for the purpose of the aerodrome and are of the opinion that the claims of the commoners and the owners of the soil can be adequately met by payment of compensation which the Council understand the Air Ministry are prepared to pay in full."
  May we at this stage be told something about the compensation rights contained in the Bill? Has any agreement been reached with the commoners about this? I note that in Clause 3 an estimate of £1,500 is given, but can the Under-Secretary say whether this is acceptable to the commoners? It should also be made clear that a Bill which extinguishes common and public rights and rights of way should not be taken lightly. It is our duty to scrutinise Bills of this kind most carefully.
  A much neglected report is that of the Royal Commission on Common Land which was published in 1958. That Commission made some important recommendations which hon. Members should bear in mind when considering a Bill of this kind. Paragraph 404 of that Report stated:
  "We have come to the conclusion that, as the last reserve of uncommitted land in England and Wales, common land ought to be preserved in the public interest"
  Paragraphs 253 to 255 recommend that Defence Departments—and this is precisely relevant to the Bill—when requiring common land should allow other uses to continue to the maximum possible extent. Paragraphs 253 and 254 of the Report refer spceifically to Anglesey, and Towyn Trewan is mentioned as a site of special scientific interest. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that he had consulted the Nature Conservancy Authority and other interested authorities on their interest in the common.
  I am glad to see that in Clause 5 maximum provision is made for the use by the public of the track from the western end of the bridge over the River Crigyll to the Trewan Sands. Are any other rights of way to be extinguished by the Bill and, if so, is provision being made for alternative rights of way for the public?

  1449
  I turn to the most important point I have to make in connection with the Bill; Clause 6, which will give the conservators power to permit certain additional works in the future. Clause 6 appears to enable the conservators to allow the Secretary of State the right, in certain circumstances, to carry out additional works which could conceivably make use of the whole of the remainder of the common. There is not much of it left, for the right hon. Gentleman's Department has taken most of it and if the Under-Secretary will look at subsection (5) he will see that it states:
  In this section "additional works" means any of the following, that is to say—

  (a) pipes and drains, other than the drain referred to in section 2 of this Act, and works in connection with such pipes and drains;

  (b) electrical apparatus, electric lines (within the meaning of the Electric Lighting Act 1882) and works in connection therewith;

  (c) means of access (whether for vehicles or for foot passengers) to land in the occupation of the Secretary of State,

  and any reference to the construction of additional works shall be construed accordingly.
  These works, it seems, could be carried out without any member of the public being able to make any representations at all, provided the owners of the soil are willing to give their consent.
  I suggest that these are very wide powers indeed. Public rights may, apparently, be taken without the knowledge of the public. I would have thought that hon. Members would want to look at this provision most carefully before giving it our final approval. The Under-Secretary may argue that these are limited and necessary powers, and I agree that they are, but, for instance, subsection (5) could be interpreted widely in the future. Subsection (5, c) states:
  "means of access (whether for vehicles or for foot passengers) to land in the occupation of the Secretary of State,".
  Could that not mean a good deal of land being involved? Could new roads and footpaths be constructed under this clause? It seems obvious, therefore, that some additional safeguard in the Bill is required to protect the public interest.
  I do not want for a moment to suggest that there is any major abjection to the Bill. That is not the case. We appreciate the contribution which the R.A.F. makes to the economy of the island. I
  1450
  certainly appreciate that—especially during the period of difficult unemployment—this Air Force Station has given employment to more than 200 civilians in Anglesey, and this has been an important factor.
  However, the Clause gives wide powers over common land; powers which seem to be contrary to the spirit and recommendations of the Royal Commission. Perhaps the Bill might provide that the consent of, say, the County Council should be obtained for such additional works? That would probably meet the case and would meet any criticism which may be made. Subject to these reservations I offer no objection to the Bill and hope that it has a successful passage through all its stages.
  5.26 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I wish to say a word or two on the Bill, but I must first declare an interest, living, as I do, just two or three miles from the Valley Airport. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on having had so few objections to a Bill of this character, because one's experience in regard to the abolition of common rights is that one usually produces much more opposition in dealing with it than one does when dealing even with privately-owned property.
  However, I should like to know—and to echo what was said by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes)—more about the civilian position. I observe that the reason for the Bill is the lengthening of a runway by quite a substantial amount; by about 400 yards, I believe. If so, will it be possible to consider the civilian aspect involved? As I understand it, Valley was a diversionary airfield for Prestwick. It does not suffer from the considerable amount of fog from which other airfields suffer. I believe that some time ago there was an agreement by the Air Ministry over the use of this airfield for civilian purposes. It seems that that did not continue for any considerable time but, in view of the shortage of civilian airfields in North Wales, I wonder if this aspect can be reconsidered now?
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Ridsdale: By leave of the House, I should like to answer some of the points which have been raised in the

  1451
  debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who over a number of years has taken a helpful interest in the R.A.F. activities at Valley.
  I will deal, firstly, with the two smaller points he made at the beginning of his speech, and, in doing so, I would refer him to the first part of my speech in which I gave the reason why the R.A.F. want these facilities. This airfield at Anglesey is equipped with all the facilities for training in the use of modern weapons in the way the Service requires, with the latest types of aircraft. But the main runway must be extended before it can be used in complete safety by these aircraft. "Safety" is the operative word here. The hon. Member for Anglesey asked by how much it would be extended. The answer is by about 1,500 feet; that is, about 900 feet within the existing boundaries—and 600 feet outside.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: The Under-Secretary of State said that the airfield is operating with the modern weapons but will not be absolutely safe until the extension is completed. Do we infer from that statement that some pilots are using the airfield although it is not known whether it is safe to do so?
  Mr. Ridsdale: No. It is a question of the later types of aircraft which may be used. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are not using that airfield without due consideration for safety in any way.
  On the question of the use of the airfield by civil operators, which was raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), I am aware of the interest of the hon. Member for Anglesey in this matter, but I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot lived so close to Valley. I am afraid I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on previous occasions, that it would be dangerous to both sides to mix regular civil air services with jet pilot training. It would certainly interfere with the training schedule. We are somewhat limited in the number of good training grounds available to us, and I am sorry that I cannot allow any interference with flying from Valley or from its relief landing ground at Mona. We
  1452
  have always made facilities available to civil aircraft in an emergency, and this will continue.
  With regard to the question of compensation raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey, we have already begun negotiating with the surveyor appointed by the commoners to look after their interests. As the surveyor is representing some 200 commoners he has, not surprisingly, asked for more time to study his brief. Since we are all anxious that a just and fair settlement should be reached, I have readily agreed to this and that is why I am unable to place before the House more than an estimate of the compensation that will be awarded.
  Secondly, I should like to deal with the question of footpaths which the hon. Member for Anglesey has raised and particularly with his remarks with regard to the Royal Commission. We are doing all we can to see that the commoners have the opportunity to use the paths as freely as possible subject to the use that the Royal Air Force makes of them. Indeed, I fully appreciate the importance of being able to get down to the beach, especially in the summer months. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the footpath will not be disturbed by the runway extension. The footpath will have to be diverted while the drain mentioned in Clause 2 is being built and while any subsequent maintenance is carried out, but once this is done the footpath will be available as before.
  There is one other track about which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is concerned. It is the track from the level crossing round the airfield to the footbridge over the River Crigyll. We have included in Clause 5 provision to allow the track to be used by the public. Some grading of the land where the track runs will be needed, and we shall do this at the same time as the runway is being lengthened. I know that the conservators are worried about the bit of track which runs along the river. They fear that in the winter it will become a quagmire.
  We think that this is something which can be settled during the discussions with the surveyor about compensation. It is to be a track and not a metal road and will provide reasonable access for the commoners, their animals and their agricultural implements. But since it is not a

  1453
  proper road, I do not think that this is something which should be written into the Bill. I am sure that we can reach an understanding with the conservators on this point in our local discussions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be good and fair landowners and pay particular attention to the rights of commoners. As far as I know, these are the only two tracks, rights of way, common paths which will be affected by our extension.
  Lastly, there is, as the hon. Member for Anglesey mentioned, the important point in Clause 6 of the Bill. It has been suggested that the Air Ministry should ask county council permission before starting any extra works under Clause 6 because, as the hon. Gentleman stated, there was the fear of further building and extension on this part of the land. Let me say once again that I am very grateful to the council for all the help it has given in connection with the Bill. I can quite understand that it is anxious that the rest of the common should not be built upon without it first being consulted. However, I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that there is certainly no possibility that works carried out under Clause 6 would take up the whole of the rest of the common. The hon. Gentleman will see from subsection (5) that the works which can be done are, indeed, of a very restricted nature. They are navigational and landing aids, pipes and drains and similar minor additions.
  This Clause has been deliberately worded to prevent any extension of building and anything done under the Clause would result at most in a temporary interference with the use of the common by either the commoners or the public. For this reason and because the conservators, five of whom are appointed by the local parish council, represent the owners of the common and the local people, I did not think it necessary to write into the Bill the need to consult the county council. We have, however, offered the council a formal undertaking to do so before we start any works. I hope that this will satisfy the council.
  In conclusion, I wish to stress once again that we are sorry that we have to make even this relatively small encroachment on the common land and to assure
  1454
  the House that we have limited the proposals under the Bill to the minimum essential if the airfield is to continue to make a useful contribution to our national defence.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because I think there is a desire on both sides that the Bill should have an unopposed Second Reading so that the extension of the airfield can be undertaken. However, I am bound to warn the Under-Secretary of State that we shall want to know a little more about some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) before the House passes the Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look again at the point on Clause 6.
  I do not understand why a formal undertaking is given, as it were, outside the powers of Parliament when, on the face of it, it would seem quite reasonable in a matter of this sort to give the county council what it wishes. We also want to know a little more before the final stage about the compensation involved. I do not think that anybody would wish to delay the Bill because it brings employment to Anglesey as well as serving a very important purpose for the Royal Air Force. I understand that excellent relations exist between the Royal Air Force and the local people and that there is a great deal of good will in Anglesey.
  I hope that the station will, as a result of this Measure, be used more, and I would say, although one does not wish to press the point now, that more thought ought to be given, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey made plain, to the use of this airfield in some civilian capacity. The weather there appears to be excellent and I understand that during and after the war it was very extensively used for transport between this country and the United States. It would, of course, not only help the local population if more work were available but would also provide an additional airfield because, unhappily, owing to our climate a lot of aircraft have to be diverted.

  1455
  I hope, therefore, that further thought will be given to these points. In our sending the Bill forward it must not be assumed that my hon. Friend's points are finished. As the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the Valley airfield and an even greater interest in the general problem of providing employment for Anglesey. Unhappily, prosperity seems to have bypassed this very beautiful part of Wales and if, as a result of this Measure and the representations made in the debate, we can do anything to meet this position I am sure that all hon. Members will be satisfied.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered,
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the tenth day after this day, and

  (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
  Ordered,
  That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the com-
  1456
  mittal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Ordered,
  That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them.
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. H. Fraser.]

  TOWYN TREWAN COMMON [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extinguish certain rights of common, private rights of way and other rights in respect of lands forming part of Towyn Trewan Common in the county of Anglesey, and to enable certain works to be carried out on other lands forming part of the Common, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of that Act.—[Mr. H. Fraser.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Command Paper No. 1835).—[Mr. Brooke.]
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
  "but regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to carry through an effective policy for the expansion of industry and the alleviation of unemployment in Northern Ireland".
  It is a somewhat surprising departure that the Home Secretary should have moved that we take note of the Report in such a formal way. After all the "ballyhoo" we had when the Hall Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland was set up, following the long period of deliberation and gestation after which both Governments agreed to set up the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman would have been eager to tell the House of the important decisions of that Committee so that the House, rather than hear me move an Amendment, should know, first, the degree of the resultant triumph achieved by both Governments. But we must wait for the words of wisdom and the degree of the triumph until later in the debate.
  The terms of reference of the Working Party were:
  "To examine and report on the economic situation of Northern Ireland, the factors causing the persistent problem of high unemployment, and what measures can be taken to bring about a lasting improvement."
  Those of us who have taken a great interest in the problems of Northern Ireland know how necessary it is that a Committee such as this should be able to fulfil its terms of reference.
  We know that for many years unemployment in Northern Ireland has been running at far and away a heavier rate than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Over the last ten years or so it has fluctuated between a little over 10 per cent. and 6·1 per cent., with a mean of about 7·5 per cent. This very high rate is one which some of us feel has not received attention either from the Government of Northern Ireland or, particularly for our purpose, from the
  1458
  Government of this country who have responsibilities of a most important character for the well-being of our fellow-citizens there.
  I have read the debate in the Northern Ireland Parliament on the Working Party's Report and the criticisms in the Press of the content of that Report. Probably on all sides it would be agreed that the Report is a thoroughly disappointing document. With the addition of an appeal for more migration and less wages, it seems to me roughly the mixture as before.
  If I may follow the restrained language of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, speaking at Stormont on 30th October, he said:
  "I cannot refrain from expressing some disappointment that in the final analysis the Report has not suggested any new approach capable within the near future of bringing about a substantial change in the present situation."
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but it is, of course, a comment very different from that which Stormont heard from the same right hon. Gentleman on 25th October last year, when he said:
  "… the Hall Committee is not just another committee. We got that committee by the sweat of our brows. We had to fight for it. The members of that committee have the best brains we have here. Hon. Members opposite may say they are not great, but my opinion is that they are great—the highest in the Civil Service … if those brains cannot solve the problem I do not know the remedy."
  This sounds like famous last words for the hopes of many thousands of people in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the present position. We must remind ourselves that the present position comes after forty years of undisputed power held by the party represented by the Prime Minister. I have read conscientiously the three-day debate at Stormont at the end of October and at the beginning of this month. Irrespective of where they sit in the House, hon. Members, and especially those from Northern Ireland, will agree that widespread dismay and anxiety was expressed by practically every hon. Member who took part in that debate.
  For my part, there was also a welcome change in that from some unexpected

  1459
  quarters there was some degree of support for the suggestions which the Northern Ireland Labour Party has been making for a considerable time. We do not claim to be more than five or six years ahead of the Tories at any time and it is beneficial to our ego to know that at last we have managed to persuade some of the hon. Members in Northern Ireland. They had not seen fit to accept suggestions made by our friends over there, but now, in the light of the dismal failure of the Working Party, they are prepared to look again at these suggestions.
  On 4th May, 1961, the Working Party, composed of senior officials both of the United Kingdom Government and of that of Northern Ireland, was set up. It reported to the two Governments on 8th June this year. We then had to wait a further four months before we knew the contents of the Report and before the debate at Stormont took place. Despite the fact that the problems of Northern Ireland were intense eighteen months ago, we now know that the period which has elapsed has been a sheer waste of time and that the problem is practically as acute as ever.
  Reading the Report, except where it does not throw up the sponge altogether, I find that it merely suggests the continuation of past policies, which are policies with which those of us who take an interest in development districts and the distribution of industry policy are quite familiar. The thing that distresses me is that, in the Report itself, the Working Party forecast, as we all expected, no real improvement, even in the present very difficult position, for quite a number of years to come. I should have thought that that is a most dismal prospect, especially for those who are unemployed in Northern Ireland.
  I have been critical of the Working Party, but, in being critical, I am not necessarily blaming its members. What I certainly am doing is to blame those who set it up to perform a task which, of its very nature, was completely beyond the scope of such a Committee. I have said that it was composed of civil servants who serve this Government and the Northern Ireland Government. As I understand, civil servants are employed to administer the policies of the Govern-
  1460
  ments they serve. They are certainly not there to teach Governments how to govern. It could be argued, however, that both these Governments badly need somebody who can teach them that, but that is not the job of civil servants. Indeed, to expect civil servants to teach Governments how to govern would be a complete abdication of the power which the electorate have conferred upon any Government.
  A further point is this. Had this Working Party produced a whole series of recommendations for measures as yet untried, it would certainly have been a most crushing indictment by the Working Party itself of the two Governments, whose efforts over many years have failed so dismally to eliminate the serious unemployment in Northern Ireland. Further, it is the case that any Civil Service based on the British pattern is restricted in the approach which it can possibly make to any large-scale economic and political problems by the general policies of the existing Governments for whose benefit they are engaged.
  I have said that in Northern Ireland we have had forty years of this kind of Government. Over here, we have had it for eleven consecutive years. I should have thought that that was quite enough, in all conscience, to stifle any radical tendencies in the breasts of the most adventurous souls within the higher reaches of our Civil Service. Certainly, if there are any vestiges of adventure still left in their breasts, they know perfectly well that, because of the composition of both Governments any such radical remedies would be turned down, and that it would be a waste of time to put them in their reports, anyway.
  We can see one illustration of that in the Working Party's recommendations. In paragraph 90 of the Report, it is stated that the Working Party does not find any case for any general expansion of a programme of public works. This is an astounding statement to make. We have seen for many years such public works as the Roosevelt New Deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and so on, in which Governments, irrespective of their politics, accept that when we are in a depression the one sector of the economy which they can control is the public sector, and expenditure on public works is a well-known remedy which

  1461
  has been successful on very many occasions. I do not understand why, in the conditions of Northern Ireland as it is now, the Working Party sees no point in recommending any general expansion of a programme of public works.
  A further important fact which should have been obvious to members of this Government and the Northern Ireland Government, is that in setting up a Working Party consisting of civil servants of the two Governments, they were setting up a Committee which consisted of incompatible interests. In other words, had there been, as there were, any suggestions made by the civil servants of Northern Ireland which were bound, by their very nature, to result in a great increase in the amount of finance which this Government would have to find, quite obviously, the civil servants of this Government would have been bound to oppose it, irrespective of what they felt about the merits.
  The only people who can agree to such an expansion or to an increase in the financial expenditure of the Treasury here are the Members of the Government themselves. How could it possibly be the case that there could be unity of interest between the two sides of such a Working Party, when the civil servants of both Governments know perfectly well that any schemes of a comprehensive nature would probably be well beyond the scope, in the sense of increased finance, to which the Ministers concerned would agree?
  I assert that our Amendment makes clear that our criticism is directed in the main at this Government. In passing, I may say that it has to reflect, and it does reflect, on the lack of effort which we believe is obvious from the Government of Northern Ireland. Our criticisms are directed at the two Governments which have failed, and not at those behind whom these Governments are seeking to hide. We have more sympathy than anything else for civil servants placed in that position.
  I know that some of the usual measures for dealing with development areas have for long been taken in Northern Ireland, and that this Government have contributed, and are still contributing, a great deal of money. We have seen in Northern Ireland itself the production of advance factories, and we
  1462
  know that the Government have tried to induce industrialists to open businesses over there, but it is the fact that over the last ten years the unemployment rate has varied between 10 per cent. and 6 per cent., with an average of 7½ per cent., of the insured population, as against 1½ per cent. until recently over here.
  It is quite obvious that insufficient has been done by both Governments to meet the particular problems of Northern Ireland, and the result of that is the heavy unemployment which I have mentioned. A further result has been the extremely heavy migration from Northern Ireland. One could bring together the net results of the last ten years by pointing out that, at the end of them, the number of jobs actually available is less than it was at the beginning, in 1951. One would be hard put to find a greater indictment than that.
  The question which the House must ask itself is whether we are now prepared to accept as quite inevitable, as an act of God, as it were, the continuation in a part of the United Kingdom of a rate of unemployment which is scandously excessive when judged either on humanitarian grounds or on the loss to the United Kingdom of the production of wealth which chronic unemployment presupposes. If the answer we give to that question is that we are not prepared to see this massive unemployment persist, we must then ask ourselves whether we are prepared to accept new policies either in supplementation of or in substitution for policies which have partially or wholly failed to eliminate it. This will be the acid test from now on of how far either this Government or the one in Northern Ireland are prepared to go.
  To put the problem in statistical form, the actual increase in population between 1951 and 1961 was 54,600. The natural increase during that period was 146,300. In other words, the estimated net emigration from Northern Ireland was 91,800, and, be it noted, this came from a population of less than 1½ million. If we take the figures of employed, we see that, as a result of the policies pursued during the past ten years, while there were in civil employment at June, 1951, 547,000, at December, 1961, there were 534,000, a decrease of 13,000 jobs during that period.

  1463
  Implicit in the whole conception of development district policy is that one looks at the effect upon the economy of the country of the measures one is taking within the development districts. Adopting that criterion, what was the value of imports over exports for the last two years for which figures are available? In 1959, there was a deficit of £37·4 million. In 1960, it was £35·6 million. These are disastrous facts. I am at a loss to understand how any two Governments can display—I do not want to use the word "cynicism"—such a lack of real urgency in the efforts which they are prepared to make.
  In paragraph 67 of the Report, under the heading "Objects of Policy", the Working Party says:
  "The economic difficulties of Northern Ireland are like those of the development districts of Great Britain, though more acute, and the policy for dealing with them must, we assume, be on similar lines also."
  I ask the House to consider that statement carefully. I suggest that it is part of the basic fallacy which is causing the disappointing results to which I have referred.
  There is no similarity whatever between the problems of development districts in Britain and the problem of distribution of industry in Northern Ireland. Over here, we give an area development district status according to certain criteria. It is an area less well placed for industry, its industries are dying, and there is need to infuse more purchasing power into the economy. We single out such an area and say that it shall have development district status. One of the ways in which such a district receives assistance is that it is surrounded by other areas which have not the economic problems which merit development district status. That is the position over here, and it is upon that that we base our development district policy.
  How can that be compared with Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is one great development area. The situation is entirely different. To suggest, as the Working Party does in paragraph 67, that the policies pursued over here are the natural ones to be considered for Northern Ireland shows an utterly false reading of the problem.
  1464
  Let us consider a little further what happens in Britain. We have over here a feature which is causing all of us from the North the greatest concern, namely, the drift from the North to the South. My hon. Friends from Scotland and the north of England never lose an opportunity to complain of the conditions which force that drift to the South.
  Mr. Dan Jones: And we shall have to complain again.
  Mr. William Ross: We do not get any satisfaction.
  Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is quite right we do not get satisfaction. However, it is the fact that, despite the high level of unemployment in Scotland and the north of England, that level is minimised to the extent that the drift to the South continues. High as the figures are, that is so. With some experience of working distribution of industry policy, I suggest that the rate of unemployment which we see in Scotland and the north of England has been reduced to even its present level quite as much by the drift to the South as by any of the measures taken under the Local Employment Act.
  An unemployed man in Northern Ireland has no London and the South-East to drift to. He has no huge industrial conurbation in the Midlands to which he can go. A man out of work in Northern Ireland is out of work in a huge development district. There is no way in which any surrounding district can help to bring economic health back to the hard-hit areas of Northern Ireland as is sometimes possible in Britain.
  I can understand people in Northern Ireland gaining the impression sometimes that successful steps are taken over here which are not taken in their country. This is just not true. If I am right about that, how absurd is the idea that any body of people sitting down seriously to consider the terms of reference of the Working Party could believe that all that is necessary is to apply to Northern Ireland the remedies which are applied in Great Britain. It is demonstrable nonsense to assert that they could possibly have any real effect. Otherwise, will somebody tell me why the measures which have been applied to minimise unemployment in Northern Ireland for so

  1465
  many years following the pattern of what has been done in certain areas in Britain have failed?
  I tell the Government here and the one at Stormont that, if they intend to confine their thinking now merely to the measures we have seen in the past, they will find that there is nothing more certain than that they will continue the story of dismal failure we have now before us.
  One of Northern Ireland's problems is that the main industries are contracting at one and the same time. Shipbuilding, textiles, agriculture and aircraft construction are all contracting. I, therefore feel some sympathy for those who have to deal with this great problem. There are very few compensating factors such as we have here in Northern Ireland. The compensating element over here is that other industries are expanding while the older ones are contracting. There is no feature such as this in Northern Ireland. I know of no industry in Northern Ireland employing a large number of people which is expanding as others are contracting. This is entirely different from the situation in this country.
  Those who have to deal with these problems in Northern Ireland have to keep on running at an ever-increasing pace to prevent themselves from going backwards. I do not wish to keep on criticising the people who produced this Report, but if the Northern Ireland Prime Minister's statement that I quoted was anything like the fact some of the obvious truths to which I have referred should have appealed to them in the minute examination of the economic problems of Northern Ireland which they had the opportunity to make.
  I realise that a fair number of jobs have been created in Northern Ireland over the last ten years. But it is not sufficient for any hon. Member to say that as a result of the efforts made there a certain number of new jobs have been provided. We must try to find out how many of the new jobs as well as the old ones have folded up. I am told that about a quarter of the jobs created in the 1950s were in industries which were already declining over here and that a considerable percentage of those new jobs have folded up.
  This is a situation which can only have been brought about by a complete
  1466
  lack of planning. [Laughter.] The Home Secretary need not laugh. Perhaps he has not heard it said that he is a planner as weld these days. Perhaps the news has not yet reached the Home Office. Unless we produce the type of jobs which have a future and which will play a part in solving our overall economic problems, we might just as well put the unemployed to work on digging holes in order to fill them up again. By this higgledy-piggledy way of creating any sort of job, we are merely replacing big, declining industries on which our economy was based by a conglomeration of human activities completely irrelevant to our economic position. That is what has been happening in Northern Ireland.
  In this country we do not discriminate between the sort of employers we encourage to go to our development districts. How much more necessary is it in an economy like Northern Ireland's that people should not merely be satisfied to get a temporary job in some part of Northern Ireland, but that that job should bear a relationship to the future activities of the industry concerned, to the economic problems of Northern Ireland and to the hope that it will be in itself a breeder which will bring more jobs in its wake. The employment of skilled labour results in the employment of unskilled labour.
  Hon. Members may say that it is easy for me to preach. I know that we are caught in something of a vicious circle. Once an area has heavy unemployment, it is not unnatural for it to jump at the chance of getting any industry which is willing to go to the area rather than discriminate in favour of industries whose development will aid our economy. But an doing that we deprive ourselves of the power to plan—I did not hear a snigger that time from the Home Secretary—and predetermine the type of industrial base which will best assist us in obtaining and maintaining full employment and economic solvency. I commend to the Government the thought that if we are to obtain the maximum benefit from the expenditure being incurred on this great problem in Northern Ireland, that kind of thinking must play a far greater part in future than it has done in the past.
  I know that Northern Ireland has some disadvantages which do not exist over

  1467
  here. Transport costs are quite a problem. As far as I can see, there is not a great deal of industrial development based on Northern Ireland's own indigenous raw material. This is a serious criticism of both the Government here and the Northern Ireland Government. Friends of mine in the Northern Ireland Labour Party have suggested that the Government should have based a great deal more of the new industry on the ancillary industries of agriculture—on the dead meat and processing industries, and so on. As far as my investigations show, there has been precious little of that obvious development taking place over there.
  We have to try to minimise the natural disadvantages of transport costs, and so on, as best we can. Therefore, if we have no plans to develop the industries whose use of raw material imports in their products is most sparing, we shall not have a viable economy, no matter how much work we put into it.
  I should not describe it as a blinding flash of the obvious, but it is suggested in the Report that there should be an investigation into the uses of air freight. I hope that such an investigation is instituted. I have to do a little of this kind of work in another capacity. Air freight costs are fairly high. There is not the slightest doubt that the percentage of global products transported by air will increase spectacularly. Delivery dates are a very important part of the challenge for markets. They are as important as the question of cost in many ways. I hope that one of the results of this inquiry will be special rates for air transport.
  If I am right in arguing for the industry which employs in the manufacture of its end-product more and more skilled labour and less and less raw material, which, I think, is the answer to Northern Ireland's problem, then air freight is the right sort of transport. In other words, one can transport value at a far higher percentage than one can if one is transporting very bulky products.
  I said, to the dismay of the Home Secretary, that I see no sign in Northern Ireland that there has been any attempt to plan new development on a properly co-ordinated basis and with due consideration of the expansion possibilities
  1468
  I have discussed. Therefore, far from the Prime Minister being right in saying that if the Hall Committee does not find an answer then there is not one, I think that in some of the lines of argument I have been using lies some sort of hope of finding a solution to this problem. If I am wrong I should like the Home Secretary, when he replies, to prove that I am wrong.
  Do not let him simply sneer at the word "planning", or make out an electioneering sneer about planners and then become a planner overnight, as the Prime Minister has done, but really, if they are going to face the issue of being planners, they had better tell some of their colleagues at Stormont that the time has come when they also had better accept the basis of a planned economy. The Northern Ireland Labour Party has for long been demanding the setting up of a development corporation and of an economic planning council sponsored by the Government.
  Here we come to the issue which I mentioned earlier. Are they, in fact, prepared to go outside the dogma which obsesses both this Government and the Northern Ireland Government in order to find a solution of the problem, or do they prefer the problem to accepting the defeat of their own policy? Because unless this Government and their counterpart over there are prepared to accept the basis of a planned economy I charge them that they are not interested in the sense that they should be in the terrible problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
  Therefore, I put it to them that they should again examine the suggestion of a development corporation which could channel investment in the right directions, which could examine research and that kind of thing which is so essential if we are to set up new industries rather than the dismal and silly projects without any relationship to one another which one has seen grow up in some parts of Northern Ireland. The main issue on this is a political challenge, and if it is not taken up I assert that the people of Northern Ireland can know quite clearly that the Government, rather than accept the challenge that their own policies are not good enough, prefer unemployment instead.
  I do not want to go in detail into the Report, but if we take paragraph 190

  1469
  we see that it is discussing here the points I have just been making about the development council and the economic planning council. This is the language used:
  "We do not think it either constitutionally appropriate or practically necessary to set up an autonomous body of either kind."
  What in heaven's name does that language mean?
  "We do not think it either constitutionally appropriate or practically necessary …"
  This is a body whose terms of reference asked it to look at the problem of Northern Ireland and suggest remedies. I see nothing which is "constitutionally inappropriate" in the setting up of a development council. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the constitutionally inappropriate part of such a procedure. Certainly, it is common practice in many other countries of the world. Why should it be thought, for the one which needs it more than any other, that it suddenly becomes "constitutionally inappropriate"? Maybe it was the source from which the suggestion came that is inappropriate so far as the Northern Ireland Government are concerned.
  These are the things which must be swept away if this problem is really to be tackled successfully. I think that, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, we should now extend even some of the vehicles of planning machinery which we are setting up in this country. When he sneered just now about planners, he forgot that his right hon. Friend has set up "Neddy" in order to do the planning work for Britain. Whether it can achieve it or not is a moot paint, perhaps, but, nevertheless, it is, at any rate paying lip service to the idea of planning.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I know that my hon. Friend would not desire to be unfair to the Hall Committee, so may I draw his attention to paragraph 191, in which the Committee says:
  "The scope of economic planning in the first sense is therefore very limited, since the powers of the Government of Northern Ireland are themselves limited."
  Therefore, what arises is the action or non-action of this Government, and not of the Northern Ireland Government.
  Mr. Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he will remember that the Amendment which we are moving is directed at this Government, it being far more the responsibility of this Government than it is of the Government of Northern Ireland. I agree about the limitations over there; but I do not like the way in which the Northern Ireland Government seem to accept limitations upon themselves. I should like to see a struggle now and again to get away from the limitations.
  I am putting it to the right hon. Gentleman, if "Neddy" is considered by this Government to be the answer to the less severe problems of Britain, why is it not appropriate to Northern Ireland? Why not? May I suggest that a member of "Neddy" should be appointed—or two members—from Northern Ireland, so that they can sit in on the discussions and the planning, the estimates of the need for increased productivity, and so on? This, I would have thought, is a constructive suggestion which the Government ought now to consider.
  There is another issue which, I think, is of very considerable importance, and it detracts from the hopes of Northern Ireland being able to get much in the way of new industries from this country. If we look at industry as a whole now we see that the units are growing bigger and bigger. We may regret it, but we are in the period, which I have described in another context, of either public or private monopoly. That is, in the great industries; but even in the industries which used to be small we find that, in order to save overheads, and because of the nature of the new industrial processes, each of the units is growing bigger and bigger.
  This does not lend itself to that which is hoped for over there—keeping a series of small factories. We find that industrialists who want to modernise their plants inevitably have to make themselves into bigger units than was previously the case. It is also the case that we get processes which depend upon their nearness to one another, and when there is a tremor in the economy of any factory it causes the closing down of factories in a development district, and these things are now working against development in Northern

  1471
  Ireland in a way which has to be taken seriously into consideration.
  We know that in the Report there is discussion of the need for the training of personnel and the unemployed. I do not think that this Government have ever done anything like enough, nor do I think that the Government in Northern Ireland have. Nevertheless, the kind of industry I have been discussing—I do not want to repeat myself: the end product containing a great degree of skilled labour, and so on—is, of course, dependent upon a large supply of pretty highly skilled personnel. As I read it, of the young people entering industry or wishing to enter industry in Northern Ireland fewer than one-sixth have any chance of obtaining an apprenticeship to a skilled trade. Therefore, even if we were successful in getting the sort of industries which I have suggested we should find ourselves extremely short of the very type of labour upon which they depend for their prosperity.
  When one looks at the industrial development—call it automation or whatever else one likes—in any of the great manufacturing nations, it means that the ratio of skilled to unskilled labour must now rapidly increase. This is an inevitable result of the modernisation process. If the tendency that I see in Northern Ireland, with less than one-sixth of the school leavers getting apprenticeships, continues, it is obvious that there will be an even bigger problem of unemployed unskilled people and an equally large demand for nonexistent technologists and highly skilled craftsmen which will prevent our having the industrial development which could be the salvation of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. He has been speaking for 50 minutes. Many of us want to take part in the debate. I do not wish to be unconstructive, but I hope that he will take the point.
  Mr. Lee: I have for many years listened to debates and never yet heard a single constructive suggestion from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But they will troop through the Lobby when it is time to do so. If hon. Members on this side of the House take slightly longer than
  1472
  hon. Members opposite, so much higher are our hopes for a constructive suggestion being made. Therefore, I do not apologise in the least for reviewing the Working Party's Report in the absence of a review from the Home Secretary, who ought to have opened the debate.
  The Hall Committee deplores the low level of productivity in Northern Ireland. Here is scope for investigation. Why should productivity levels be so low there? I can say from same experience that if one is working in an atmosphere in which there is massive unemployment, one does not listen to the economists who tell one that inefficiency will bring more unemployment. One hangs on to the job one has. Therefore, as long as the unemployment situation obtains in Northern Ireland, productivity will be below what it could be.
  We are now in National Productivity Year—I have attended two or three functions in connection with it, and I have no doubt that other hon. Gentlemen have done so, too—but apparently in Northern Ireland they can afford not to have a productivity council; and in Northern Ireland of all places! Why have they no such council? It is because they still do not recognise the trade unions.
  I want to help Northern Ireland in every way I can, financially and otherwise, but I would insist to the Northern Ireland Government that as one of the prerequisites to our spending millions of pounds trying to improve production there, they must use every instrument at their command to that end, and they cannot possibly achieve what they seek while they deliberately refuse to recognise the northern committees of the Irish trade unions. It is a fantastic situation. I do not know an employer in Britain who would dream of refusing to recognise the trade unions as important instruments in increasing his productivity. Yet in one part of the United Kingdom where productivity is criticised and unemployment is high, the Government insist upon treating trade unionists as though they were untouchables. As a prerequisite to the granting of more assistance, Her Majesty's Government should insist that this anomaly should be ended.

  1473
  I want to ask a detailed question before I finish. I am extremely worried about the future of Short Bros. Other hon. Members opposite are, too. We have discussed the firm and the future of the Belfast Freighter, and we now know that there is not to be a further order when the present 10 aircraft have been produced. The Report says that even the conditions visualised in 1965 depend upon a certain level of employment for the Short factory. Should we now expect that the level will be lower than would otherwise have been the case as a result of the decision not to order any more Belfast Freighters? We know that there are some sub-contracts on the VC10 which the firm is to have. Will these substitute in any way for the loss of any future orders for the Belfast Freighter? What is the future of the SC1? Here we had a lead in vertical take-off over any other nation, and I believe that lead has been largely dissipated. Short's was first in the field with this. I have seen its developments even beyond the SC1, and I should like to know whether the firm can hope for any further orders for that kind of thing.
  I have said that the Hall Report is a dismal failure. It is a great disappointment to us all. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us where we go from here. Is it now being said that because this Working Party has failed to find any solutions, there are no solutions to be found? As I put it earlier, is unemployment in Northern Ireland an act of God, or do Her Majesty's Government now accept the need for an overall plan with a development corporation which can co-ordinate our efforts and ensure that the money which we spend shall be wisely spent on the kind of industrial development I have tried to outline?
  I move our Amendment because the major criticism is directed at Her Majesty's Government. They have been lacking in imagination and have not devoted enough effort to solving the problems of Northern Ireland, largely because of the attitude "out of sight, out of mind". We criticise the Government for that. I ask the House to accept the Amendment because if any hon. Members opposite, especially those from Northern Ireland, believe that they can get away with the Amendment which they have tabled, or by merely taking
  1474
  note of a dismal Report like this one, they are letting down the people who sent them here.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: If I take as long as 55 minutes to make my remarks, I hope hon. Gentlemen will start throwing their Order Papers at me. We have, however, listened with interest to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), and I shall come to his speech in a minute.
  I begin by welcoming on behalf of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland constituencies the decision to have the debate on the Hall Report in Government time. During the last eighteen months I have been fortunate enough in the Ballot on two occasions to secure a private Members' day for discussion of Northern Ireland, and I have become rather apprehensive that my success may attract suspicion and that if I win the Ballot once again the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition might suggest that a Radcliffe type Committee should be appointed to investigate my methods. I am, therefore, very glad that this debate is in Government time.
  My hon. Friends and I who represent Northern Ireland constituencies pay tribute to the former Home Secretary who is now the First Secretary of State. He was responsible for Northern Ireland from 1957 to 1962, which was for us a very difficult period because of I.R.A. terrorism and economic uncertainty. My right hon. Friend was always ready to see and help us, and we greatly appreciated his help. We recognise his tremendous assistance to Northern Ireland and we consider him to have been a very true friend.
  We also take the opportunity of welcoming the new Home Secretary to his post. We know of his tremendous experience in Wales and we hope that he will have the same degree of success in Northern Ireland. We were glad he was able to visit us in Northern Ireland so quickly after his appointment, and we hope that during his stewardship we shall see a substantial step forward economically in Northern Ireland. Perhaps a new pair of eyes looking at our problems may be of value.
  It had been my intention at this stage also to welcome the presence of Liberal

  1475
  Members, because as recently as October the Chairman of the Liberal Party went to Northern Ireland and lectured us on what his party would do for Ulster. I expected him, therefore, to follow this up by getting all seven Liberal Members present at this debate. Unfortunately, they are not here. They are probably drafting a Press release explaining their failure in today's by-elections!
  We welcome any constructive and sincere interest in the problems of Northern Ireland, from any quarter—and we make no qualification. We thank right hon. and hon. Members opposite for their attention and interest—for instance, Lord Robens and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley). Although we have disagreed with them on many occasions, they have always taken an interest which we have welcomed. What a tremendous contrast between their attitude and the speech of the hon. Member for Newton tonight. It was a heartless, mechanical, political speech and I hope it will be recognised as such.
  Mr. Lee: Unemployment is heartless, I can assure the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member made what was essentially a political speech not particularly suited to this occasion. If it was aimed at the electorate of Northern Ireland, it was an insult to their intelligence. He has been taking an interest in Northern Ireland for some time and I am disappointed that he still does not seem to have a real grasp of the problems we face or to understand the progress that has been made. I wondered what was new and constructive in his speech compared with what was proposed in speeches from the Labour Front Bench six or seven years ago, but I found that it was a rehash, a proper dog's breakfast.
  Mr. Lee: I would do it again.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Spare us that, please. There was very little positive in the speech. The hon. Gentleman said, for example, that only ideal types of industry should go to Northern Ireland, such as those closely connected with agriculture. These are certainly ideal industries for us, but they are not the only industries. Are we to turn away
  1476
  others which come to us because they are not 100 per cent. ideal? We have had considerable success in getting all kinds of industry.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the hon. Member is dealing with this point. As I see it, the desire in Northern Ireland is to attract industries with a high labour ratio rather than those with a high machine ratio. Will he tell us precisely what his ideas are?
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I should have thought that that factor was clearly brought out in the Hall Report. The policy of the Government over the years has been to get industries with the maximum labour content rather than industries with a tremendous proportion of capital to labour. The hon. Member for Newton brought out all the old chestnuts about the development corporation with a wonderful use of the English language. But even the Northern Ireland Labour Party is beginning to realise that that one is a dead duck. He made a number of other points—vague promises, vague suggestions—and I could not help recalling the words of William Hazlett:
  "Some people make promises for the pleasure of breaking them."
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour Party will be in opposition for many years and will have little opportunity of implementing any of the proposals he made today. The Amendment will not be supported by hon. Members form Northern Ireland. We consider it essentially a political Amendment and will contemptuously vote against it.
  I come now to the Hall Report. I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the atmosphere of apprehension and uncertainty in Northern Ireland today. Much will be done to get Northern Ireland moving again if he can blow away the clouds of pessimism covering Ulster and create an atmosphere of confidence. Once confidence is created, much of value can be done.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Newton was a little hard on the Hall Committee. Perhaps it was unimaginative in its approach, but it would be wrong if he were to classify the Committee as doctrinaire. As he will, of

  1477
  course, know, Sir Robert Hall is politically to the Left. I put it no stronger. I have recently been reading his book The Economic System in a Socialist State. I commend it to the hon. Member. But the Committee did not approach any of the proposals from a doctrinaire angle. Its terms of reference were wide. It was to consider
  "… what measures can be taken to bring about a lasting improvement."
  I would remind the hon. Member of the Motion passed unanimously by this House on 30th March last, saying that Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland
  "would be justified, if necessary, in taking exceptional measures"
  in solving our economic problems.
  Have the Hall Report and the measures taken since by the Government come up to that standard? Lord Brookeborough used at Stormont recently the word "disappointing". I feel that that is what is in the hearts of most of us when looking at this Report. There are many useful ideas and valuable suggestions, with much useful analysis, but, above all, it lacks a "glamour girl". Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the public reaction to the Report has not been enthusiastic.
  Is there any easy solution to regional unemployment such as we have in Northern Ireland? Many of us have seen a conjuror waving a magic wand. A conjuror might wave his wand over a copy of Erskine May, say "Abracadabra" and produce a bunny rabbit. There is no "Abracadabra" solution to our problems. Is there gold at the end of the rainbow for Northern Ireland? Or is one still driven back time and again to the realisation that there is no simple solution and that we are deluding ourselves if we think there is? Hon. Members may have read the Report of the Toothill Committee on the Scottish economy, a much broader Committee than the Hail Committee, in which it was said:
  "If there is a panacea for Scotland's economic problems we have not found it. It would indeed be remarkable if a single remedy were available for troubles so diverse in their origins."
  I also refer the House to the words of Mr. David Bleakley, the Deputy Leader of the Northern Ireland Labour Party,
  1478
  who, speaking at Stormont on 1st November, said:
  "If the Hall Committee within the confines of the task it was set, had been able to suggest that, in fact, something could be done from the other side of the water I am convinced that it would have suggested it."
  This also supports the argument that there is no easy, simple solution. One must inevitably accept that this is the moment of truth, but it is not the moment to despair.
  My most serious disagreement with the Hall Report is in its implicit acceptance of the continuation of unemployment at a level of about 7 per cent. The belief which the Report seems to move towards is that the ship, somehow or other, may float off the sandbank with rising economic activity in Britain and general prosperity in the Common Market. I hope that this evening the Home Secretary will be able to strike a more positive note and reject this negative attitude which I feel has done much to harm the Report.
  There is a special matter in the Hall Report about which I should like my right hon. Friend to say a word. That is the suggested inquiry into air freight. I was glad to hear from an Answer given to a Question last week that the Air Licensing Board is to carry out this inquiry. I hope my right hon. Friend will give details of the method of working and will not allow B.E.A. entirely to monopolise the inquiry and place its dead hand upon it. Can it be made much wider? I hope the Home Secretary will be able to arrange the participation of the firm of Short Brothers & Harland in the inquiry.
  In the debate on the Address on Monday, 5th November, the Leader of the House, when winding up, had quite a lot to say in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). In drawing to the end of his remarks, my right hon. Friend said:
  "In my view, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South, asked the key question, namely: is this enough? Is this the last word? Let me say quite flatly, no, it is not. We recognise that none of these additional measures will, of itself, solve the problem, and we shall not be satisfied until, in the closest consultation with all the Ministries concerned and particularly with the Northern Ireland Government, we have found a much better and, we hope, lasting solution

  1479
  to this intractable problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 731.]
  I take those words as encouragement. Perhaps in those words my right hon. Friend has given some hostages to fortune. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say more about what was in the mind of the Leader of the House and what further measures can be taken.
  I now come to the Amendment in my name and the names of four hon. Friends, which seeks to add to the Government Motion:
  "and urges Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with the Government of Northern Ireland, to set up a permanent Joint Committee of Ministers whose first task would be to formulate and implement proposals for a five year development plan aimed at making a substantial reduction in unemployment by the end of that period."
  I assume, Mr. Speaker, that this Amendment is not being called, but I should like to refer to it in passing.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that these things work together. No doubt the hon. Member may say something but not necessarily refer to the Amendment covering grounds which would have been covered had it been selected, which it is not.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I simply pass it by, saying that it is a private and unofficial Amendment in the names not of all Northern Ireland Members but of some of us who feel that there is a certain gap in Ministerial responsibility concerning Northern Ireland. The point which had been in our minds, and which I think is very relevant to the debate, is the question of who is responsible for reducing unemployment in Northern Ireland. One cannot help feeling that over the years the presence of a separate Parliament at Stormont has led to a feeling at Westminster that the problem can be shuffled off to Stormont. I think there is certain evidence in that direction. Passing the buck is one of the oldest games in politics. I believe Harry Truman, when President of the United States of America, had on his desk a little plaque saying, "The buck stops here". Such are my thoughts about this Amendment.
  I ask the Home Secretary to cast his eyes over and to consider reviewing the
  1480
  overall system of Ministerial and Government responsibility between the two Governments. The situation in which the Home Secretary is directly responsible for Northern Ireland as a senior member of the Cabinet is in my view a good idea. I should not wish it to be interfered with, but I wonder whether there is not now a case for having a Minister of State solely responsible for Northern Ireland under the Home Secretary.
  Such a Minister, I suggest, might sit in the House of Lords so that he would be able to get around much more both in England and in Northern Ireland. There is a respectable precedent for this in Wales. Such a Minister would be essentially a person with a Northern Ireland background. On many occasions he might regularly attend Northern Ireland Cabinet meetings by invitation. I think the system which operated before 1921, in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had a foot on either side of the Irish Sea, is one to which in some measure we should attempt to return.
  Mr. Loughlin: Straddling the Giant's Causeway?
  Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend might also look at the idea suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South of a permanent joint committee of Ministers from Stormont and Westminster who would meet regularly. They could meet sometimes in Belfast and sometimes in London. I do not define too closely the Ministers on this side who would be members, but there are certain obvious ones who would be involved. The essential principal is that there would be joint responsibility for reducing unemployment. At the moment there is a vacuum to a certain extent. Responsibility would rest fairly and squarely with that committee. The first task of the committee should be to formulating a five-year development plan for Northern Ireland aimed at making a substantial reduction in employment in that period. If an extra 3.000 jobs a year could be provided by the direct initiative of that Committee over a five-year period, 15,000 jobs would be provided and unemployment would be brought down to about 3½ per cent. as an interim measure.

  1481
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) will expand in greater detail the idea of the development plan.
  Mr. Loughlin: How does the hon. Member know?
  Mr. Stratton Mills: That is the result of what we call prior consultation.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member must not say things like that. The prerogative of selecting speakers in this House rests in the Chair.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Let me phrase it another way. If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, she will, I hope, enlarge upon the idea of the five-year development plan. I hope that I have satisfied the procedural niceties in the mind of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin).
  The essential idea of the joint committee of Ministers would be to put the ultimate responsibility of reducing unemployment upon the committee, its main object being not to accept the present situation but to make a positive contribution to solving Northern Ireland's economic problems.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: I should like, first, to associate myself with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and with the views of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, (Mr. Stratton Mills) concerning the disappointment which arises from the report of the Joint Working Party. It may well be that to appoint a committee of civil servants to examine a report upon such a serious industrial situation was unwise. I should like to have seen the appointment of a committee of industrial experts who by experience and training were capable of giving both a short-term and a long-term assessment of the problem.
  The problem is one of ever-increasing unemployment of both skilled and unskilled workers, particularly in shipbuilding and the aircraft industry. The Report draws attention to the fall-off of employment in agriculture, shipbuilding, aircraft and textiles when employment
  1482
  in these industries in Britain is declining. The greater percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland may be due to a number factors which are not common to Britain.
  The suggestion in the Report that the encouragement of migration should be regarded as one of a composite mixture of measures to alleviate unemployment is one which, I trust, nobody, on either side of the House, will accept. The workers of Northern Ireland, like those of the remainder of Britain, do not look kindly upon being uprooted from their homes, their friends and their country. They feel that work could be found if a real effort were made. The responsibility rests clearly upon the Government, and it is a responsibility which they have evaded far too long.
  The longer the delay in arresting the growth of unemployment, the more difficult will the problem become. Unemployment increases other problems. The fall in purchasing power creates depression in a wide sector of industry. The Government are allowing unemployment to grow, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout Britain. Unless immediate steps are taken to reverse the trend, industrial decline will result and it will become beyond our control.
  The prosperity of Northern Ireland is bound up with that of Britain. The two cannot be separated. We are making a drive for greater productivity. We cannot allow men with skill and training to waste away in unemployment. The success of our economy depends upon the full use of our man power. The battle for success during the coming years will be won in the workshops of the nation. I urge the Government to act without undue delay.
  I believe that on both sides of the House there is a sincere feeling that the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland and elsewhere should be tackled severely by the Government. There is nothing in any action which the Government have taken, either in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the British Isles, which convinces me that they realise the seriousness of the problem. The older hon. Members of the House can cast their minds back to the periods of great unemployment. We hope and pray that for the sake of the future prosperity of

  1483
  the nation, for the sake of the happiness and well-being of our young people, that will never recur.
  If we are to prevent the continued growth of unemployment and its development into a greater unemployment problem, we can do so only by planning the economy of the nation. I know that arguments have been flung from one side of the Chamber to the other about the term "planning". No business, whether it is a great State enterprise or a private concern, could possibly have been successful without a measure of wide and extensive planning. The Government must realise that unless we plan the nation's economy, we shall not prevent periods of unemployment and, possibly, greater disaster for the nation.
  We talk nowadays about our entry into the Common Market. We are told that there will be greater opportunities for competition. We have been told that British industry must roll up its sleeves to face competition from the Common Market countries. We shall not be successful in this competition if we allow the men who have the skill and capacity to produce what Britain needs to rot away on the unemployment heap.
  We must consider this as a most urgent matter for the nation. The economy should be planned in such a way, in co-operation with all sectors, that we ensure the continued prosperity of the nation and wipe out the unemployment spots in Northern Ireland and in every pant of the British Isles. Let us plan so that prosperity may be brought to every individual in the country. It is our duty to do so and by so doing we shall achieve something which will enable our country to be even greater in the future. We have set an example to the world by our industries and our social services. Even our Parliamentary system has proved an example of haw to deal with the common needs of society and to extend the fellowship of man. We have had our differences politically, but, even so, we have worked together for the development of our local government and national government systems.
  The same spirit of co-operation and sacrifice must today permeate the Government and industry in order that we may ensure that this problem of unem-
  1484
  ployment is nothing more than a passing phase in the industrial life of the country. Let us face our future with determination and ensure that our country shall be greater than ever before.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: The opportunity we have had of discussing this very important Report is one which all who have a real and genuine interest in and a long-term determination to promote the welfare of Northern Ireland will welcome very much. The Report has been useful in bringing the facts regarding Northern Ireland, the hard facts of Northern Ireland's economic problems, before the notice of the public both here and in Ulster. Nevertheless, it is true to say that our feeling is one of disappointment because no answer is offered to the problems facing Ulster.
  This Report is a very realistic survey of those problems, but it is not a practical study of the means of solving them. Thus we are very disappointed and we shall have to find some other solution rather than relying solely on the Report. I suppose that this was bound to be the sort of Report which would result from a work study undertaken by civil servants. The majority of the suggestions are accepted by a minority of the working party but were not accepted in general, and I believe that we have an opportunity to re-examine these matters to see whether they were rejected for political reasons rather than practical reasons.
  The main snag about the Working Party is that its Report has merely restated the known problems. It presents them clearly. The Working Party has taken a great deal of time—far too long in my opinion—in doing so. Great hopes were raised. We felt that it would provide answers to the problems which we had found impossible to solve ourselves. Unfortunately those hopes have been dashed by the content of the Report. It rejects practically all of the positive suggestions which were advanced and fails to suggest any real answers to the problems of underemployment. The Report has largely defined the limits of economic planning in Northern Ireland and is very much the "mixture as before".

  1485
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) referred to the word "planning" as if it were an answer to all problems. He talked about the need for ideal industries in Northern Ireland. I believe that those who have made a long-term study of the problems of Northern Ireland, including the members of this Working Party, are not quite so utterly stupid as would appear from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. Planning, as such, is not a word sacred to any one type of philosophy nor to any particular political party. Nor, indeed, to any one report or group of persons. Nor is there anything new in the idea of finding the right industries for Northern Ireland or for many other areas. That idea is not the prerogative of one school of thought.
  Over the years Northern Ireland has sought to attract the right kind of industry; to replace the traditional industries, which declined because of a change in the pattern of industry, and to find jobs for those who had worked in the traditional industries by attracting new industries which would provide employment without creating problems in material terms. A number of industrialists have investigated the possibility of coming to Northern Ireland and whether it was practicable to set up a factory there. They sometimes have decided that the cost of transferring materials would be too great. The idea of a more or less unlimited amount of good quality labour attracted them. But against that they had to balance transport costs. So I would remind the House that when we are talking about planning, and when we discuss Northern Ireland from the point of view of the provision of ideal industries, there must still be found an ideal solution to the problem presented by the presence of the Irish Sea and the difficulties of transport.
  This was not a matter to be discussed especially by the Working Party. There is the House Committee which is studying it. But we must remember this problem if we want to be useful and helpful in our discussions regarding Northern Ireland; I have no doubt that everyone wishes to be that, and in their efforts to solve the problem of underemployment in Northern Ireland, they will refuse to accept this Report as the final answer, as I do.
  1486
  As I said, the Report largely defines the economic planning limitations in Northern Ireland and prescribes a mixture which is very much as before. I am sure that most of us will not accept it as the final answer. As the House will know, one of the main proposals was that there should be a 10s. subsidy for mortgages in new industries, but this was not accepted by the majority of the Working Party because, I believe, it was felt that a subsidy would not last long under the Treaty of Rome.
  I believe that this Report has been drawn up with the possibility of our entry into the Common Market in mind, and as the long-term method of solving our problem, or at least of putting it fairly into perspective. I can understand that a 10s. subsidy may not be a real inducement to industry, but the extension of a forthcoming subsidy would at least help and certainly be an improvement for the industries concerned. The continuance of the 75 per cent. derating mentioned in the Report is obviously useful, but derating has its dangers and shortcomings as have all long-term continuous subsidies.
  The most negative result of the Report is that apparently Sir Robert Hall and his colleagues expected us to accept a definite level of unemployment of up to 7 per cent. This we cannot and will not accept. We shall endeavour strenuously to reduce it by every means in our power, and we shall expect the full support of this House in that matter. I believe that we can effect a reduction. Many people are appalled at the thought that any party of responsible people should appear to accept this negative attitude. It means a man of 45 years or over—this is constantly happening—who is unskilled and who losses his job, has virtually no opportunity of regaining permanent employment. This is the situation which we are facing and which we have to overcome.
  There is the permanent pressure created by the increasing population of young people growing up and leaving school who are looking for jobs. If there is any temporary recession and they lose their jobs they have little opportunity to get permanent employment again. This is a very difficult problem. I wish to make clear that I believe that the young people must have

  1487
  a chance. We must give them the best start in life that we can without danger of the older people who have an equal right, and need, to have their own jobs secured.
  There has been much negative discussion this afternoon. There has been much talk about what has not been done. I say enough of negative talk and enough of stressing the problem. The Hall Report stressed it thoroughly. We must now turn to the work which must be done to solve the problem in the light of what is said in the Report. Paragraphs 64 and 65 of the Report contain a very clear statement of the situation. Paragraph 65 says this:
  "There are strong political and social arguments in favour of aid to Northern Ireland. It is not for us to elaborate the political arguments."
  This statement leave it open to us in the House to elaborate these arguments and find a satisfactory conclusion.
  "The social argument is that Northern Ireland has had, ever since the beginning of her existence as a separate political entity, a much higher rate of unemployment (and a lower income per head) than the rest of the United Kingdom. The political and social arguments are combined in the argument that the prime necessity is to put more men and women in the region to work or to keep them in work, and that Ulstermen should not be compelled to leave the region to find work."
  I have quoted paragraph 65 first, but paragraph 64 is also very relevant. It deals with unemployment benefit and National Assistance grants. It says that the extra resources which are needed to put people to work should be outweighed by the value of the product of that work. This is an important aspect which I hope to develop later.
  The suggestion contained in the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and other of my hon. Friends, which has not been called, has some merit. We must remember that in the past there has always been very close co-operation between the Government here and the Government at Stormont. There has never been any suggestion of a lack of co-operation at Ministerial level. However, the idea of a continuing and continuous committee is a modern one and is suitable to modern times. When Ministers come from Northern Ireland to discuss things
  1488
  with Ministers here, it leads to renewed hope at home, perhaps to a raising of hopes that something new is in the wind. At times of local crisis it leads people to think that something urgent is being done. The rights and duties of each Government and the rights and duties of the public would be better served by a continuing committee which, if it had a small quorum, would be able to continue to discuss and consider matters affecting Northern Ireland in conjunction with the rest of the United Kingdom as and when they arose without any special meetings being convened. We must continue to suggest this until it is agreed to.
  I know that the Government here and the Government at Stormont think that their lines of communication are very clear. This is not understood by the public. A great measure of confidence would be instilled in the people of Northern Ireland if a continuing committee could be set up and be seen to work regularly and steadily and not only when matters of urgent necessity arose.
  One of the ideas brought forward by the Hall Committee might be implemented. I believe that there is considerable merit in the suggestion that there should be an economic advisory council. It is necessary for Governments to obtain the advice of people in industry, people at the working end of things. The Hall Report adjures the economic adviser to the Government of Northern Ireland to keep in close contact with both Governments and with what is going on in the economy of Northern Ireland. Although there is only a rather vague mention of an economic advisory council, the Hall Committee has brought it forward in a way which we cannot ignore.
  If such an advisory economic committee were to be set up, with persons in industry on both sides of the water with knowledge of local problems in Northern Ireland and with knowledge of the general trends in the United Kingdom who could advise and keep in touch with the permanent joint committee of Ministers of both Governments, we should be in a much better position to anticipate industrial trends, to anticipate needs for development, and to find an opportunity to offer Northern Ireland's well worth while possibilities to industrialists when they are likely to need to expand.

  1489
  This could also be used in the other sense, to find out how far Northern Ireland can expand at a certain time, at a certain rate, and with certain skilled labour. The development of these two co-ordinating bodies would do much to solve our problems. The word "planning", which does not belong to any party or to any particular philosophy, can be used in this context without it being a dirty word either from our side of the House or from the opposite side of the House. I hope that the word "planning" will be considered only in a relevant sense.
  We must remember that the United Kingdom needs to increase her overall production by at least 4 per cent. This will not be easily achieved. We shall have to struggle for it. In our tight economy we shall have to work very hard for it. If the present standard of living in the whole of the United Kingdom is to be maintained and developed, we must have this increased production. A Government inquiry will be examining the dangers and difficulties involved in certain parts of the United Kingdom losing their labour potential because it is all congregating in the Midlands and the Southern regions of England. What we are trying to get at is how to alternate this and get the work to go out rather than the people to gather in.
  In Northern Ireland we have the space. We have the people. We have the intelligence. We have the will, which is perhaps most important of all. We can offer great help in this need to increase overall production. I must make it clear that we cannot do this in every single industry, because there are some industries where the proportion of the cost of transport and raw materials to labour makes it uneconomic. However, in many industries we can help. We must make it much better understood and known how determined we are to offer ourselves.
  It must be remembered in this context that the rate of increase in production in Northern Ireland has been higher than the average in the rest of Great Britain over the past few years. Despite all our difficulties and problems, we have managed to achieve that. Our rate of production has increased more quickly than it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. This proves that we are determined and that our people are
  1490
  determined and would be worthy employees of those who come to use the amenities of Northern Ireland for their industrial production. We must think again of what the committee of Ministers might be able to do.
  Mr. John McCann: The hon. Lady has been dealing at length with a problem in which other parts of the country which have skilled labour but no work are interested. Perhaps the hon. Lady will develop the point. If industry will not go to Northern Ireland, what would she do to take it there?
  Mrs. McLaughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he will wait a little longer he will find that I shall come to that point in due course.
  I was about to say something more about the Committee of Ministers and how we think that the advice it could receive from the economic advisory council and from outside Government sources on both sides of industry would be helpful. There is no definite conclusion in the Hall Report, but paragraph 225 contains these words:
  "The provision of general economic advice to the Government of Northern Ireland is important … The establishment of an economic advisory body of persons drawn from outside the Government service should be considered."
  When it is being considered we want to know what more it can do than what I have already mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) asked what we would do if industry will not come to Northern Ireland of its own accord. I ask him in turn what anybody can do or what any political party or Government can do if an industry is not in a state of healthy expansion. If industry is expanding, it must find the place and the means to expand. When industry is expanding it is entirely dependent on the type of industry whether it can go further afield or whether it cannot afford the transport costs.
  We are slightly handicapped today because we have not yet received the Report from the House Committee which is studying the transport problems and particularly those affecting Northern Ireland across the Channel Transport. If we had known the results we would

  1491
  have been in an easier position today to discuss how best we might help to encourage industries to come to Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look again at this himself. We have had great success in attracting industry; in fact we have had enormous success. Do not let anyone say that we have not, because today we have such a wide variety in such a small area that I do not believe that any other part of the United Kingdom can match it.
  We enjoy—that is the right word—the benefits of industries coming from America, Canada and Great Britain, all of which appear to be equally happy and all of which appear to be making a reasonably satisfactory profit and return out of their ventures in Northern Ireland. We have one or two snags, but, as with everything else, one hears about the ones that go wrong and does not hear about the hundreds that are successful. If anyone wants to know about the success of industry in Northern Ireland, I recommend him to look at the Chamber of Commerce Reports and also the Northern Ireland Government Reports to see how many jobs have been provided, how many new industries are there and how many industries are waiting what may be the advent of this country into the Common Market which will, without doubt, give us an impetus in Northern Ireland by increasing the number of industries which will settle there in order to be ready to meet the tremendous developing market in Europe.
  We know that at the present time our own problem in Northern Ireland cannot be allowed a set back and cannot wait or be bypassed. We cannot afford that, and we do not accept that the Hall Committee's Report is the final answer to all this. So we have an urgent need. Taking into account that overall Britain has an expanding economy and that we must help in this and push on, then we must look to see how in the next few months or years we can attract further industries.
  It is suggested in the Hall Report that we should not have any larger capital investment grant, and no larger once-for-all grants to new industries and so on. It was suggested that we should not have a greatly increased programme
  1492
  in public works. In fact the only thing that it suggested that we should develop was housing, and I am sure that every hon. Member will agree with me that housing is the most human of all problems. Following the Report this will be tackled in Northern Ireland just as fast and adequately as it can be. I believe that this Report and the people who have studied to produce it have dealt with this problem from a very narrow angle; in fact they were wearing blinkers, and this narrowed down their ideas to such an extent that it has not been finally successful.
  We have this potential and the determination to meet our problems, and there are certain things that we must do. The idea of increasing public works is something about which the Chamber of Commerce Report comments as—
  "not being likely to bring about development of additional exports."
  I believe that I should not be turned down simply because it is not agreed to in the Report of the Committee. I also quote from the Chamber of Commerce Editorial on the Hall Committee—
  "The recommendations of the Toothill Report having been turned down—
  this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North earlier—
  "it clearly believes"—
  this is in fact the Government—
  "that enough has been done to meet the social needs of areas suffering from economic difficulties and that there should be no further interference with economic forces which are tending to concentrate a particular population in a prosperous belt stretching from London to the Midlands."
  At the same time, we know from this comment that the Chamber of Commerce is dealing with it from a revenue-producing angle. It believes that much more should be done in terms of public works and suggests that this should be looked at again in the context of business life and in the light of how much is paid out in unemployment benefit to people who have no work to do and who would gladly do the work if it were there.
  So we want to know why this is turned down. Admittedly we have the problem of skilled men, and I must quote this in passing because it is relevant and is used

  1493
  in the argument in the Hall Committee's Report:
  When the big pay-off in the Belfast shipyards took place it was a matter of great concern to us all. It was interesting to note that it was the semi-skilled and unskilled men who could not get employment generally in other places.
  I am only quoting one particular skilled trade which I know personally. I do not know of any joiners paid off in the shipyards in a considerable number who have not been absorbed by the increasing amount of work done in the building industry, and so we know that if we can expand public works in different directions we may be able to take up many more of the unskilled and semi-skilled men who today have lost their jobs and have no hope of regaining them unless we increase again the traditional industries, which seems unlikely at the moment, or find them some alternative method of employment.
  The need for public works is very obvious. I know that it will not produce profits and the same development in the economy that new industries will do, but at the same time in Northern Ireland it could create a climate of opinion and of thought and an attitude of bringing people out of this feeling of, "I have lost my job, I have no future." It seems absolutely crazy that in this day and age we should pay about £3,600,000 in the year 1961–62, which with the increased number of population coming on to the unemployment lists and the increased benefits rates, will be increased by £1 million in the current year. It seems crazy that we should allow people to be in misery today doing nothing when we can, through public works, do a great deal to take up the slack of unemployment and give these men a job and at the same time develop a situation whereby there are more attractions to industries which is the long continuing answer to the problem—industries which will bring with them all the benefits of full employment, good work and products well-turned out produced in a healthy community.
  On top of this the housing drive already mentioned has been accepted by the Government on the recommendation of the Hall Committee as an essential part of the economy—
  Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the hon. Lady raised this point. I think that the
  1494
  position of public works is very important to Northern Ireland. Would she not also agree that one of the effects of public works development or expansion is a snowballing effect, as was found in the United States of America in the Roosevelt New Deal period?
  Mrs. McLaughlin: I have not got to the stage of dealing with this in terms of Northern Ireland, but I do not think that it can have quite that effect. We need in Northern Ireland considerably more road development. We could do with more tourists development, and I know that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) will be developing this if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye. But, in terms of amenities and resources it is impossible at the moment in a small community like ours to produce many extra amenities purely on what could be drawn from the rates, because it would put too much cost on local authorities. This can be looked at in terms of employment as well as in terms of amenity developments. We need more roads because railways are being closed and we are having fewer lines than before. We need to develop the rural areas considerably more. If we could do a lot of this development and could look at it as an overall picture, I believe that much could be done, but the Northern Ireland Government have very limited powers in this matter. If we had our Ministerial Joint Committee and if it was possible to do some long-term planning, I believe that this need not be held up, discussion could go on, and it could be taken up fairly quickly. This would not be an enormous problem and it would take up many of the hundreds of people who are standing about our streets and countryside. Here again we have to consider how much this will help to attract industries to this part of the United Kingdom.
  It is always interesting to note that people go where others have been, and even industry is comparatively sheep-like in that respect. Industry wants a satisfactory outlet, and a place where it can get labour, where costs are reasonably satisfactory, and which is free from the usual type of difficulties of strikes, hold-ups, bottlenecks in transport, and so on. That means that we have everything to offer in this way, and very little to hold us back, but we always appear

  1495
  to be asking and begging people to come to us whereas, with a programme of public works and the creation of this tremendous drive we could create a climate which would attract more people than have come already—
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I have the greatest sympathy with the Northern Ireland problems that the hon. Lady is presenting to the House, but would not the solution appear to lie in the appointment of one of the Northern Ireland Members as President of the Board of Trade for Northern Ireland in order to look after Northern Ireland's problems exclusively?
  Mrs. McLaughlin: The hon. and learned Member is quite entitled to that view, but I believe that having, as we have today, a very much wider range of Ministers, and having the whole Government interested, we do better than if we had only one Minister with a narrower responsibility.
  In 1951 our unemployment rate was 6·1 per cent. Today, with a very much larger working population, we have many more in employment than ever before. In October, for instance, we had 2,284 fewer unemployed than in September, and this year we have 4,299 fewer on our unemployment register than at the same period last year. This we have achieved despite all the "dismal johnnies" and difficulties—
  Mr. John McCann: But what is the percentage? We know that in 1952 it went up to 10 per cent., and it has varied between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. since. The last level was 7½ per cent.
  Mrs. McLaughlin: If the hon. Member is really interested, the present figure is 6·4 per cent., but I do not think that percentage points are relevant in tackling this problem. To get the figure reduced to the national level is our object, not arguing points of percentage. Ten years ago, the figure was 6·1 per cent., with a very much smaller number both of those on the unemployment register and of those coming on the register from the upsurge of young people in an increasing population. We have increased the number of jobs and decreased the amount of unemployment. We need more jobs, but what we have done has
  1496
  been accomplished m the face of all the difficulties of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries.
  This public works programme would considerably help to reduce the unemployment figure, but it will not reduce the profitable economy that we must aim for, and achieve. Much could be done to help towards this economy. We could have package deals with Wales in respect of transport and touring holidays, selling this idea in the United States and elsewhere before people ever leave their homes. We can also do more in regard to air freight. At present a party of two and a small car can travel to and from the south of England to the Continent for about £21. If we could do something like that, it would do much for our economy. We hope that the House Committee can help us to find a way to solve the problems presented by the Irish Sea.
  There is a great deal of merit in regional co-operation. As we all know only too well, there are many other areas in the United Kingdom that need to solve their unemployment problem, too. Our problem is to get more jobs available, and to provide a climate for industry and development rather than to move people to jobs in what is already an overcrowded area, which not only does not solve the problem as a whole, but creates more problems.
  Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has this unusual and specialist problem, which the Irish Sea presents, of being separated in a sense entirely different from Scotland, Wales and all the other areas needing special attention, so we have to harp on it more often than people might wish, because it is so important. In spite of the co-ordinated programme in the United Kingdom, in which we should like to join, we still need individual and specialist treatment.
  I ask the Government how, if we cannot solve the problems of Northern Ireland, will we cope with the enormous problem of entry into the Common Market and taking into it with us numbers of people who are not yet employed but who may—we hope will—be employed when the new development takes place. We must tackle this problem before entering the Common Market, so that we do not carry with us unemployed persons who want work but

  1497
  have a fully-equipped economy to tackle this tremendous challenge, which should be so worth while.
  Training schemes for the young will help us. Day-release schemes, and training schemes such as those undertaken already by the aircraft industry, are very important, but we then come up against a big difficulty. I represent an entirely industrial constituency, and I know and recognise that the trade union situation is difficult. Nevertheless, men say to me, "I am skilled, I have done my apprenticeship to a certain trade, but as I cannot get a union card I cannot get a job as a skilled man". The trade union has to protect the men it already has, and refuses other men their cards.
  The unions, therefore, are naturally cagey about the number of apprenticeships offered, and we must tackle that situation without there being any sense of one side of industry against another. That is a major problem, and one that really worries us. If we are to have more training schemes, we must be certain that the chaps who are trained will get the opportunity of having their training recognised.
  I can see the union point of view—that if they recognise too many men there will be too many of their members looking for the jobs, but if we are to increase our skilled labour from the young we must accept that as something to be solved—
  Mr. Richard Marsh: Could the hon. Lady give some indication of what trade she is now talking about, because this is something I have never heard of?
  Mrs. McLaughlin: I quote such people as electricians, and others that I know of in my constituency. I do not say this in any sense of complaint, but state it as something that must be dealt with. We know that this is one of the major matters which will prevent us developing training schemes, and we must have sensible agreement on this. Our industrial output is increasing rapidly, and if it is to continue increasing rapidly we must train more young people by making apprenticeships more widely available to them.
  Industrialists say that they are hamstrung because they are only allowed to take so many apprentices. That is a
  1498
  matter for negotiation, and something which might be solved more rapidly by the work of this advisory economic council and this co-ordinating committee of Ministers than in any other way. Those people would be able to get all the necessary information from all sides in industry and, in particular, from the trade unions.
  I have already quoted our present unemployment rate of 6·4 per cent, and I shall not go into the details again. What we have done has been achieved against a background of great difficulty, and only the combined determination of Government and people has enabled us to keep the figure as low.
  Self-help is important. The Hall Committee has virtually thrown the whole problem back again. It has said that Northern Ireland must pull itself up by its bootstraps, and continue to have the aids to industry that are already available. It is true that the Committee puts forward one or two minor suggestions, but we must remember that, with a net annual increase of working population of about 6,000, we cannot pull ourselves up by our bootstraps alone. That is not possible. We need more industry and, in particular, more exporting industry because we cannot afford to absorb in our area the output of all the new industry we require. Despite all the aids which have been mentioned before which equal about 9 per cent. of the gross expenditure on all supply services and on which the Working Party did not recommend any increase, we will still have a big battle to fight if we are to do something worthwhile.
  We hope that the House Committee will show us where we can do something to help. But we need more co-ordination between United Kingdom policy generally and that for Northern Ireland so that we can get on more easily with the job. We need more industry on our doorstep. There is no time to waste, and all the things that have been suggested, such as more processed foods and the using of more local products to produce goods of a high quality, are all extremely interesting and important, but sporadic efforts just will not do.
  Thus we need the Economic Advisory Council and the Joint Ministerial Committee, and we need them quickly. The

  1499
  five-year plan as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North is designed merely to draw attention to the fact that one cannot do something helpful and say "That is all." One must do more and, when that is done, do still more in an effort to reach a final aim. To this aim I believe that all the local authorities in Northern Ireland should be prepared to produce their plans and needs for the next five years so that they can be discussed in Northern Ireland and in London. After such discussions, it can be seen how much is feasible, how much can be done. In all this we must always remember that there are too many unemployed doing nothing in Northern Ireland and that this is not only bad for the people concerned but it is costing the country a tremendous amount of money.
  We need more investment in Northern Ireland. At present we have a few large public companies and a very large number of limited companies whose capital has not increased since the war in the way necessary to produce adequate financing to meet increased costs and other forms of development. This is all stated in the Report of the Joint Working Party, so I need not detail the points but mention paragraph 191 as being of great importance in considering development.
  Please today do not let us fall into the morass of misery and declare that nothing can be done. Never let it be said that the civil servants could produce a report that we were prepared to accept as final and to let the matter rest there. We should be able to deal with these problems, for while they produced a report according to their terms of reference, those terms meant that they had blinkers on while they were going into these important matters affecting Northern Ireland's future.
  Let us say that we are not satisfied with the present position but agree that much has been done within certain limits. Let us continue to stress the fact that we are determined that Northern Ireland's economy shall be extended and the rate of unemployment reduced until in the next few years, Northern Ireland will have a level of unemployment similar to that of the United Kingdom and then we shall try to pass that level and, eventually, beat it.
  7.54 p.m.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). I found her speech moving and sensible, but I cannot for the life of me think why she is going to vote with hon. Members opposite. Surely she and her hon. Friends realise that as long as they go on voting for the present Government everything they say will be completely meaningless and useless. I can only hope that one day the hon. Lady will be a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade so that she will be able to discover why so many of her suggestions, admirable though they are, never come from the Government.
  I welcome the debate because it reveals the complete failure of the Government to tackle the regional problem in this country. There has been a tendency in the past for areas of high unemployment to regard each other as competitors for the limited largesse of the Government, each concession to one area being regarded as a setback for all the others. I detect nothing of this attitude among my hon. Friends in the Labour Opposition in the Northern Ireland Parliament. They are the representatives of the areas of the most persistent unemployment in the United Kingdom and they represent the spearhead of the attack on the Government for their failure to tackle these regional problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said that Northern Ireland was unique in that its problems could not be tackled by treating the area as a development district, while in the remainder of the United Kingdom the development districts provided a satisfactory method. This is certainly not true in the North-East or in Scotland. Here large areas—areas equal to Northern Ireland—are all scheduled as development districts and are all suffering from the same problems as Northern Ireland.
  The Report we are debating came from a working party of officials who had themselves been dealing with policy towards Northern Ireland. It is not surprising, therefore, that they found that the tenor of their conclusions was that the Government had been working on the right lines. What is surprising is the

  1501
  confusion apparent in their argument. The hon. Member for Belfast, West described it as a realistic analysis and survey. I do not agree with her. In paragraph 15 it is said that net output per operative in 1949 in Northern Ireland was 73 per cent. of that in the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole, and 68 per cent. in 1957.
  In the next paragraph this is identified with lower productivity. It implies a certain clodhoppishness on the part of the Irish worker which I find as offensive as it is unjustified. However, this seems to be the attitude of the Government towards all workers in areas of high unemployment; an assumption which seems to lie at the root of their policy towards these areas—an assumption by which they think that they are dealing in terms of charity and not economics. The workers are "zealous"—yes, "disciplined"—yes, but less productive and, by implication, stupid. This seems to be the view of the Government towards workers in all areas of high unemployment. This would matter less if it were not for the sort of impression the Government make on many industrialists who would consider going to Northern Ireland.
  There is no evidence whatever for this point of view towards the Irish worker. Indeed, the very authorities quoted by the Report specifically rebut this view. After 25 pages of analysis, Isles and Cuthbert observed:
  "… comparative values of net output per worker are not a measure of relative productivity."
  They pointed out that the distribution of workers between industries, the capital employed in the different industries and the different buying and selling arrangements and prices all tended to reduce net output per worker in Northern Ireland.
  Dennison made the same point. Isles and Cuthbert gave several estimates of output per worker, but the Report gives the lowest figure and draws a moral implication from it. I hope that the Minister will dissociate himself from this view of the workers of Northern Ireland, which is so much at variance with the experience of industrialists who know there is parity between the workers of Northern Ireland and those of the rest of England in this respect.
  1502
  Paragraph 28 of the Report attempts to estimate how suitable the unemployed are for the kind of work that is or might be available. The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned that the Report said that the 26,000 unemployed under the age of 45 together with the 1,500 unemployed craftsmen over the age of 45 gave an indication of those who might be suitable for training for new industries.
  But what is to happen to the 12,000 over 45? Surely it is borne out by experience of persistent unemployment in other areas that it is the old, the blind, the halt and the lame who lose their jobs and stay unemployed. They are pushed out of the bottom of the labour market and are made more unemployable. Also when new industries are introduced it is not these people who are employed by the new firms. On the contrary, the new industries suck the more able out of other employment leaving room in the economy as a whole for the less able.
  The Report itself, in paragraph 26, remarks that
  "… there is a tendency for men who have left to take up employment in Great Britain to return if jobs become available in Northern Ireland."
  Why, then, lower the sights for jobs for Northern Ireland? The inconsistency into which the writers of this Report have been led by their pseudo-moral judgments, reflecting the outlook of this Government, shows again in their discussion of possible measures of aid. They say that
  "… a subsidy for increases in employment would tend to attract less desirable types of firm which would invest little but would plan to operate for only so long as they received the labour subsidy."
  Perhaps so, but earlier, in paragraph 69, the Report says that:
  "… new industries should preferably be labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive."
  Then there is this final sell-out:
  "It would be unrealistic to expect that Northern Ireland can in the foreseeable future reduce unemployment to as low a level as that in Great Britain."
  What good can come of such defeatism? The Government should not have sheltered behind the appointment of such a committee. Ministerial responsibility has been brushed aside and the Report bears the imprint of officials of the Treasury, the Home Office, the Board

  1503
  of Trade, the Ministeries of Labour, Agriculture, Transport and Power. I find this Report a shocking indictment of the state into which the Government have allowed the public service to sink. When the party on this side of the House forms a Government we shall expect higher standards of competence, and I am sure that the public service will provide them.
  In Northern Ireland we do not face a temporary failure of Government policy which will be put right when expansion resumes. The hon. Lady suggested that when expansion gets going again we can have a direction of industry policy which will send industry to Northern Ireland. Present policy has no more than kept pace with the rising demand for jobs, and the Report holds out no prospect of a decrease in the proportion of the unemployed. The situation has been like this through boom and recession for many years, and the continuation of present measures will just not be enough.
  Let us first set the objective. Surely it is full employment and a level of prosperity equal to anything in Britain. Why not? Will the Home Secretary say what his objectives are in Northern Ireland? Dare the Government go to the polls anywhere in Britain and aim at less? Then let us ask what measures are needed to achieve the ends we seek. Everyone is unanimous in saying that new industries must develop in Northern Ireland. In spite of the slighting remarks made about what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton said about getting the right industries there, it is certainly necessary that the right industries should be developed.
  Arbitrary action, whether by direction of industry or stepping up financial inducements to an even higher level, may well be ineffective if they are undertaken in ignorance. I am full of admiration for such works as the report by Cuthbert and Isles, but they are plainly struggling within a totally inadequate framework of national and regional statistics. It is, for example, absurd not to be able to follow the variation of capital per worker in different industries and different regions. But, more important, is the framework and the outlook within which information is presented.
  1504
  Industry and Government need to be able to answer such questions as, Is it or is it not economic to move a production line for television sets from London to Belfast? Economic statistics are not there for us to philosophise about national aggregates which we can do nothing about. They are there to improve decision making, which is almost always a decision about a project in real terms affecting many aggregates.
  I beg the Government to consider whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not be right, after all, when he says that the Treasury thinks too much in terms of financial totals and should sometimes consider the real resources available. It is true that until the Chancellor has licked the Government's statistical machine into shape we are all fumbling in the dark, but if we cannot prove ourselves right, the Government cannot prove us wrong.
  The need for regional planning machinery has been mentioned. In the debate in the Northern Ireland Parliament the suggestion was made of planning machinery linked in a national framework with the N.E.D.C. Surely this is right, but has the Government's attitude been as forthcoming as it might have been? Has their attitude to the Toothill Report, for example, been forthcoming? Do the Northern Ireland Government, in saying that no such machine is necessary and that the local Government is in touch with the needs of the area, engender confidence in the ability of the Government to carry out the measures of planning that are needed? On the evidence of this Report they could not.
  But regional and national planning machines on their own are not enough. Major decisions are taken on an industrial and not a regional basis. No real contact is now made between the Board of Trade, which is aware of the social problem, and industries, who are aware of the technical industrial problem, when it comes to a question of discussing industrial development certificates and the location of industry. There is no rapport beween the Board of Trade and industrialists.
  The Government are right up to a point. There is a danger of destroying industry and enterprise by ill-informed

  1505
  meddling with its location. But the conclusion is to get informed, and not to leave industry alone to choke in ignorance of its future. We need industry commissions, relatively small bodies of men expert in the affairs of that industry, men who are authoritative and respected in the industry, who would be responsible for all questions of investment and location and taxation and the manifold fields in which the Government now act in ignorance. These could all be dealt with by these commissions.
  The industry commissions would provide strong and effective links between the regional councils and industry. In location of industry problems firms would find themselves dealing with commissions which knew their problems and their background rather better than the firms themselves. We should have these dual organisations of regional councils and industrial commissions providing a framework within which it would be possible to tackle the problems of Northern Ireland.
  Let us look to the Northern Ireland situation for an example of what is happening now. We have the pathetic case of Shorts, and I am sorry that the Minister of Aviation is not here. There was a picture of him sitting in the cockpit of the Belfast aircraft, giving the thumbs-up sign. Is this the way to plan an aircraft industry? Hon. Members should ask the people in Shorts whether they have been offered any framework by the Ministry of Aviation within which they can forecast the need for air transport in the future, the need for different sizes of package and different lengths of haul. They are left entirely on their own to argue their case in ignorance of the Government's outlook. Is this an effective basis for industrial expansion? It has cost Belfast very dear.
  Organisational machinery, in itself, is certainly not enough, and the dual organisation would need tools, as the Government now need tools. The question of regulators was raised in the Report, and rejected. This question of the employment subsidy, or, putting it a different way, the regional variation of employers' National Insurance contributions, should be considered closely. The Government got its pay-roll tax wrong, but can they not look at some of
  1506
  the good ideas in it? It is not a short-term regulator, but why not impose differential increases in employers' contributions to discourage employers increasing employment in the South, by comparison with the North and Northern Ireland?
  Again, why not have Purchase Tax regulators which are specific to the productions of particular areas? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was arguing this case for the motor car industry when he said that a mammoth reduction of Purchase Tax would help employment in Merseyside and Scotland, but he omitted to point out that of the 150,000 extra jobs which the Purchase Tax reduction might produce only 20,000 jobs could possibly be created on Merseyside and in Scotland, and that the other 130,000 would be created in London, Birmingham, Coventry and Oxford, where the total of the unemployment today in all those cities is only 50,000. Therefore, there would be only 50,000 people available to fill 130,000 jobs.
  The Chancellor accepts the principle of specific area and industry Purchase Tax regulators, but will not use them effectively. Regulators—general, broad, countrywide or even area-wide—are not specific and effective enough. We need specific projects. This is always dismissed from the other side of the House with the glib remark that direction of industry implies direction of labour. Direction of whose labour? Presumably of the management, because they would be the people who would have to go to Northern Ireland to start up a new factory. I could name a dozen managers who have been barn, bred and educated in Northern Ireland, but who have been unable to get jobs there and who are longing to get back. Certainly, there are difficulties in a crude direction of industry policy—difficulties in the selection of industries and so on.
  But the Government have a tool which they have not used and which has not yet been suggested. The most precious thing which they can give to an industrialist is knowledge of the future, which is worth a great deal mare than even a very large subsidy. Why not offer Government guarantees of sales? Let them consider the tremendous surge of

  1507
  spending which will came with the introduction of colour television. Let them announce, first, that Government factories to make colour television sets are to be located, say, in Northern Ireland, and that the sets are to be sold at much lower rates of Purchase Tax than any commercially manufactured sets. Then, let them offer the industry the right to go to Northern Ireland and operate in the Factories there themselves. Industry would go smartly enough, and I do not think that even the Government would say that this was being particularly tougher than they were in the case of the amalgamations in the aircraft industry. This is the way the Government determine the shape of economic development, whether in the authorisation of colour television or in the placing of aircraft orders.
  Why do we not do it? The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West mentioned public works, and I am sure that she is right. These are needed urgently, but the people in Northern Ireland must remember that terrible wall round the reservoir in Silent Valley in the Mountains of Mourne, built by the unemployed in the twenties and thirties—a useless monument to the mismanagement of those years. Let us make sure that the public works that are undertaken are to create genuine expansion. But we cannot be sure of that, unless we have this much more fluent framework to regulate the relations between Government and industry.
  This idea of a Standing Committee of Ministers is not good enough. Why do Ministers appoint Committees of civil servants? It is because they have not the time or experience to deal with problems at the level of technical expertise which is required. It needs an enormous development of the planning machinery which the Government have now begun to set up. When the "Neddy" Report comes out at the end of the year it will become obvious that the Government will not have the means by which to implement that Report. I hope that the first step they will take is to set up the machinery needed to tackle the vast human problem in regional development such as that in Northern Ireland.
  Mrs. McLaughlin: With regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said con-
  1508
  cerning the wall round the Silent Valley, will he say whether he refers to the wall built at the time of the potato famine? If so, it is not relevant in the context of this discussion. Or is he referring to some wall which we do not know about? Any wall built round the Silent Valley was very necessary for containing water for the City of Belfast and other places, and was not built for any useless purpose. Further, and this is relevant to his comments earlier on, will he say why it is that during the period when his party was in power they did not succeed in reducing unemployment in Northern Ireland, which we all know is such a problem? Why was it not achieved then?
  Dr. Bray: With respect, we did not have the planning machinery we needed then, because we did not have the outlook in industry to fit in with the planning.
  Mrs. McLaughlin: But there was planning of the economy under the Government of the hon. Gentleman's party.
  Dr. Bray: With great respect, the whole outlook of industry is the essential factor in this. When I was discussing this framework of organisation with a distinguished economist, on whom the Government themselves have relied very heavily for advice, he commented that there just was not the level of expertise in industry available to co-operate with such an attempt, that there were not people in industry who could take a wide view of their problems. When I asked why he said, "Because they do not join in discussions at Government level." I share the view that these may be the kind of people the Government bring to these problems, but this is not the outlook of modern industry who feel it is a necessity to plan and co-operate in the solution of social problems.
  Mrs. McLaughlin: What about the wall?
  Dr. Bray: The wall was built in the 'twenties.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Clark: While it is rather difficult to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), it

  1509
  appeared that he had taken this opportunity of a Northern Ireland debate to give us a lecture on orthodox Socialist thinking. He obviously has some knowledge of Northern Ireland, but some of his remarks were not complimentary to Northern Ireland feeling. At any rate, he has taken the trouble to read the Report.
  I should like to make one comment on one of the hon. Member's points, though there are a number on which I should like to argue with him on another occasion. I should like to ask him whether he thinks that if we suddenly and completely arbitrarily announced substantial reductions of Purchase Tax on colour television sets manufactured in Northern Ireland, we should not provide just those gimcrack sorts of industries which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) was criticising? Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that, if there were a special tax provision for colour television sets produced in Northern Ireland, this would be of any lasting value? How long would such colour television sets continue to be produced in Northern Ireland at a particularly high level?
  Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman has a peculiar ignorance of the rate at which industry changes today. No industry is static for more than seven years, least of all the industries which have had capital grants from the Northern Ireland Government and which are alleged to have plants which will operate indefinitely. This is just not true. Therefore, one has continually to tackle these problems. Certainly, the manufacture of colour television sets would take care of the problem for only a limited period. This is true of capital investment in Terylene, the Chemstrand plant, and so on.
  Mr. Clark: I take the hon. Gentleman's paint when he says that industry changes. I could not agree more. There is definitely considerable reason for having capital-intensive industries which, broadly speaking, will not be closed down when times change half so readily as the labour-intensive industries which it has been suggested we ought to have.
  I compliment the hon. Gentleman because, as I have said, he has read the Report. At times, as I listened to the
  1510
  other speeches from the benches opposite, I thought of that good old Northern Ireland phrase which is heard when someone says something particularly obvious and rather lacking in erudition—"Ah, what are ye talking about?". Quite frankly, when I heard the suggestion that we ought to look for labour-intensive industries, or that we ought to look to things which did not have much weight so that they could be transported cheaply, I thought of that Northern Ireland phrase. These things have been thought of before. The contribution of the hon. Member for Newton, who opened the debate for the Opposition, amounted to just about nil, apart from its length in taking up the time of the House. However, I must got on and he reasonably brief because there are others who wish to speak.
  Everyone has spoken about the disappointment which the Report has produced. It is not exactly a Report to cheer anyone up, but I feel that the disappointment comes partly from mistakes on both sides. All of us were concerned about the delays in publishing the Report. We wanted a good Report. The newspapers kept egging people on to think that the Report would help us and would produce answers. We all began to expect a Report which would solve some of our problems overnight. We were rather stupid about it. We should have known that a group of civil servants would not produce a revolutionary document. We should have known very well that there are no universal panaceas.
  There were mistakes on the other side, also. A working party of civil servants is competent to judge somethings, but not competent to judge others. There is no doubt that the members of the Hall Working Party, when given this very large task, were rather tempted to look about them and comment on nearly everything in sight. I think that their remarks about hotel facilities and air travel facilities to Northern Ireland look as though they were based solely on a three-day visit which the members made. They certainly have very little relevance and carry no weight at all. Just what the competence of the members of the Working Party was to comment in the way, I do not know. They argued purely from negative premises. Their remarks

  1511
  about agriculture are so obvious that they are hardly true. Their remarks on several other subjects on which they are not particularly competent to judge hardly merit reading.
  However, because those remarks are made often in short paragraphs, which are easily read, people tend to read them first and comment on them. Of course, the Working Party's incredible remark about emigration was certain to cause a stir in the newspapers. Many people never read the Reports themselves, but only newspaper accounts of them. How could the Working Party really think that a social survey was necessary to decide why Northern Ireland men do not want to emigrate? But if one puts those things aside and forgets one's hopes—very false hopes they were, before the Report came out—one realises that the Report is, on the whole, very much what one could have hoped for. There may the fallacies in the argument. Economists can usually pick a fallacy in almost any argument by another economist. But, on the whole, we have a fairly closely reasoned argument set out in what is, in my opinion, an extremely well documented Report. The way some of the figures are collected, examined and set out is of considerable assistance to people who have never bothered to study Northern Ireland before.
  Dr. Bray: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that it was necessary for the Government to appoint yet another fact-finding body when such excellent studies already existed?
  Mr. Clark: I am sorry that the Report was so long in being published, but I certainly do not say that the job which has been done was useless. I do not say of this Working Party's efforts, as can be said so often of the work of commissions and committees, that all other progress in Northern Ireland stopped while it was sitting. In fact, considerable progress has been made during the last two years in tackling unemployment in Northern Ireland.
  The Report is well documented. It is a Civil Service appraisal of Government methods of helping the economy. What the Opposition do not like, of course, is that this appraisal of ways and
  1512
  means endorses, on the whole, the policy of the Northern Ireland Government. Although it may be said that some of the civil servants came from Northern Ireland, they did not all do so. Sir Robert Hall himself has not a Right-wing or Ulster Unionist background.
  Furthermore—here I disagree with several of my colleagues—I think that the note is not entirely pessimistic. From a reading of the recommendations, and particularly the argument about the 10s. per week wage subsidy, it is quite obvious that the majority opinion of the Working Party was that a measure of this sort, which might very well distort the economy for a very long period, was not justified because the trouble it might cause in later days would not be justified by the need before us today. It is clear to me that the economic problems of Northern Ireland are not quite as had and everlasting as they are sometimes made out to be. I am content that, if we continue working along current Lines with a little more imagination, we shall solve our problems.
  We have here, I suggest, a valuable Report and a not entirely depressing one. However, it does not take us very far. Its recommendations are Civil Service recommendations which can be implemented quite quickly. I suggest that the Report can act as a valuable beginning rather than as an end. We must consider where we can go from here. This is the reason why I put my name to the Amendment which has not been called. I believe that we must think of much closer and more continuous consultation between Westminster and Stormont. I should like there to be regular meetings alternately in Belfast and in London at which the principal Ministers concerned are always present, but at which Ministers representing every Department on both sides of the Irish Sea are represented from time to time.
  One of the troubles has been that meetings between Stormont and Westminster have too often taken place in an atmosphere of crisis, when emergency action was called for. Far too often, at these meetings only crisis and emergency were discussed. Very seldom has there been opportunity to discuss the probably less urgent but not necessarily less important matters which could go a long way towards solving the problems of Northern

  1513
  Ireland. I should like to see regular meetings, with the smallest possible headlines in the newspapers, at which the maximum amount of work can be done.
  Another point to which I hope my right hon. Friend will reply is this. I should like the, attention of the National Economic Development Council to be directed to Northern Ireland's problems. Since we make up only one-fortieth of the United Kingdom, it is probably too much to suggest that there should be two Northern Ireland representatives on the Council, but I feel that we can suggest that there should be one Northern Ireland expert on the staff in order to make sure that our problems are considered regularly.
  An announcement in The Times, a few days ago, said that the Government are making a general survey of industrial trends. May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that this survey will take in the affairs of Northern Ireland? That is the type of continuous investigation and study which we want.
  One of the most popular recommendations of the Working Party was that more money and support should be given to the tourist industry. I have my own pet theory on the Working Party's economics in that it seemed to be under the impression that it is productive and of great economic value to take in tourists from abroad, but that it is of little or no value to give holidays to our own people. It has been commonly supposed by various economists that to do one's own washing is very much less productive than doing someone else's. The tourist facilities of Northern Ireland can do extremely valuable work in providing Northern Ireland's people with holidays in their own country instead of their dashing off to the Continent or to Southern Ireland for their holidays.
  The tourist industry has a fairly considerable potential. The new grants being made by the Northern Ireland Government for hotel building and improvements are extremely welcome. The Working Party was rather quick in saying that it did not recommend increased public works. A number of productive and economically justifiable public works could add considerably to the tourist industry. I think of heated outdoor swimming pools in some resorts which could lengthen the bathing season
  1514
  into June and September. There was a plan quite recently for a footpath round the North Antrim coast which could equal, and probably more than equal, the Pennine Way in this country. The relatively small sums of money spent on this sort of thing could do a great deal to add to Northern Ireland's tourist amenities and which should be looked into.
  There is a great need for new houses, and when houses are built near tourist resorts the possibility of designing and building a house which has a particular potential for letting rooms in the summer, possibly with an individual front door and individual bathrooms, might be considered. This is a small idea, but it is the sort of thing which helps. It was not the job of the Working Party to produce ideas like this, but they can go a considerable way towards solving our problems.
  It is not always money which causes difficulty. I got rather tired going into bookshops and asking when the Ordnance Survey would produce a 1-inch map of my constituency and the rest of Northern Ireland. This job has not been completed. We have been waiting for such a map for twenty years. I need not persuade anyone that a good 1-inch survey map is possibly the best enticement to a particular type of tourist.
  There is one very big snag for our tourist industry. The attraction for the English and Continental tourist is not Northern Ireland, but Ireland as a whole. It is the whole of Ireland which particularly attracts a tourist from this country if he wants to make a motor tour. But there is one very big snag. If an Englishman goes to Dublin and hires a car, he cannot take that car into the United Kingdom—into Northern Ireland. There is a Customs regulation which prohibits a citizen of the United Kingdom taking a foreign-registered hire car back into the United Kingdom. It also prevents any United Kingdom citizen from driving a Dublin-registered car in Northern Ireland.
  This is a fairly standard regulation all over the world. It just happens to hit Northern Ireland rather hard. Last year, about 1,000 cars were available for hire to tourists in Southern Ireland. Possibly there were more this year. Those cars

  1515
  are regularly on hire to tourists throughout the summer. A very considerable number of them are hired to Englishmen. About 600 to 700 families of English people are hiring cars every week right throughout the summer in Dublin and not one of those families can come to Northern Ireland.
  I took this question up with the Treasury. We went into it very carefully indeed. I remember very well discussing it with a very senior and rather aged Customs official. When I made this point he threw up his hands in horror and said, "Oh, sir, but that would mean a change in the regulations". I said, "Yes, I think that we want to change the regulations." That put the thing utterly and completely out of court. Over his dead body would the Customs regulations be changed.
  There is a small point which could be worked out between Westminster and Stormont to settle this question, and we might very well have 200 extra carloads of tourists coming into Northern Ireland every week. That is the kind of change we want, and again, it is the kind of cooperation which we need.
  Moving on very briefly to the other major industry in my constituency, which is agriculture, I would say that the Hall Report does not deal very fully or eruditely with agriculture. One thing is quite apparent, and that is that whether this country enters the Common Market, as I hope we do, or whether it does not, there will be a very big change in British agriculture over the next five years, and I feel very strongly that this change is going to hit Northern Ireland rather worse than most. The Hall Report produces rather interesting figures. This is the first time that I have seen them. They show that, on the whole, we rely more on agricultural subsidies than other parts of the United Kingdom. This is not because we in Northern Ireland have the worst farmers. The reasons are fairly obvious. One is because our agricultural products are caught by freight rates, and inevitably the subsidy percentage becomes a larger percentage of the whole.
  We also, for historical and geographical reasons, have to concentrate rather more on those products which have had the bigger subsidies and we have not been able to go in for those products, such as vegetables, which one can
  1516
  sell direct to markets without subsidy, because we are so far from many of the markets. We are delighted that the Minister of Agriculture has recently made provision for an experiment in sugar beet growing which we hope may lead to a full-scale sugar beet industry which is unsubsidised and extremely profitable.
  However, the next five years of transition, in or out of the Common Market, will be difficult, because we rely on subsidies, and also because our units of farming in Northern Ireland are particularly small. The small farmer has had to specialise to a very considerable degree to get an income. He has in fact, in many cases over-capitalised his farm completely beyond the levels which good commercial practice would justify. In the years ahead there will be a change of front and a quite considerable amount of the capital which the small farmer has invested will be dissipated.
  It may be that milking parlours are no longer used for milking; there may be high-grade cattle bought at considerable price and another type of beast is wanted; it may be that expensive machinery has been bought for one sort of crop and another is wanted. But there will be changes in the emphases in agriculture and there will also be new capital needed by new forms of agriculture. Will the Minister of Agriculture, when he is looking at these problems, please think very carefully of the small Ulster farmer whom these changes will hit hard?
  There is another problem I want to come to, and that is one which the Hall Committee mentions on page 85 in Appendix XII of its Report. That is the question of our own regional problems in Northern Ireland. Quite frankly, this again is a place where the Committee's Report, though excellent in parts, has not, I think, done itself justice. In my constituency I could take hon. Members to places where the level of unemployment is 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent. The people there have probably never been more prosperous in their lives. I can also take hon. Members to large parts of the country where the unemployment level is 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. It is those regional problems which are some of the most difficult which we have to solve in Northern Ireland.

  1517
  Some of our unemployed are in such inaccessible places that it is almost impossible to provide them with jobs. The ideal of a small, 20-man factory in every village is a lively thought, but quite impracticable. We must think seriously, of taking jobs to these people, putting jobs in places where the people can get to them. At present, a very considerable number of people in Northern Ireland get to their jobs only after very long bus journeys. Many girls in my constituency earn £8 a week in a factory, but take home barely £5 after paying their bus fares—anything up to£2—as well as for their stamps and lunches. I reckon that these people, wheher they are employed or not, are getting a very raw deal. Perhaps we may try to get factories to the more outlying areas.
  We were delighted to hear of the two very large firms which have announced their movement to Northern Ireland—the Michelin Tyre Co., Ltd. and Carreras Ltd., cigarette manufacturers. Both are going to the Belfast area although considerable inducements were offered to them to go to areas deeper in the country. If we cannot take the work to the people, we must give the people the opportunity of moving nearer where work exists. It is very much more difficult today to get a decent house in an area like Belfast where there are reasonable employment prospects, and relatively easy to get one in areas where there are no employment prospects.
  The Government of Northern Ireland—it is largely their responsibility—must look at this matter carefully in future. I believe that there may well be room for co-operation between Westminster and Stormont. There are town planners and various other experts who could he of value to the Northern Ireland Government if loaned to them.
  I end again on the note that we must have continuous co-operative planning between the two Governments. If we do, I am sure that it will prove the correctness of my belief that if 93 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland can obtain good jobs there is no reason why the other 7 per cent. should not, too.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I should be very hesitant in claiming to be an expert on Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am very reluctant to say that I am of Irish extraction, which is perhaps one of the qualifications that I can claim for participating in the debate, because I remember telling an Irishman that I was of Irish extraction and he replied, "What does that mean—that you had a tooth out in Dublin?"
  I have listened to hon. Members opposite discussing unemployment in Northern Ireland. I am disappointed at the efforts of representatives of Northern Ireland to stimulate this Government—the responsibility lies with them; I shall refer in a moment to the Hall Report on this issue—into doing something about the tragic position in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) complained about the contribution made to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). The hon. Member then proceeded to make a speech the content of which, as far as the problem with which we are dealing is concerned, was of no consequence whatever. It was a combination of clichés of every possible type. He talked about "blowing the clouds of pessimism away", "pots of gold", "ships on sandbanks", and "hostages to fortune". The whole of his speech was constructed around a number of clichés and he did not make a single contribution to the debate.
  Then we heard the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). Although I did not agree wholly with her contribution—I felt that she was on a tightrope in attempting to face the inefficiency of this Government while, at the same time, wanting to be loyal to a party—she made some suggestions. She laid emphasis upon the difficulties of Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the Irish Sea and the problem that results from companies moving to Northern Ireland and facing additional transport costs to get their goods into the rest of the United Kingdom. But that is not a difficulty that cannot be overcome.
  This is a situation in which 31,000 people—6·4 per cent. of the employable population—are unemployed out of a

  1519
  total population of 1¼ million. I am one of those who has experienced unemployment. I am sorry if I bore the House on this subject, but to me unemployment cannot be measured in statistics. There are not only the material disadvantages of being without a job. The psychological disadvantages are perhaps even worse.
  A man wants to be able to command the respect of his wife and family and within a short time, with all the love in the world, that respect is eroded by virtue of his not being able to support them. Do not let us imagine that we are simply talking about lines that can be drawn better. We are talking about a human problem which, with all its variations, does not seem to get much better.
  It is no good the hon. Lady saying that there has been a decrease of about 2,000 in ten years. The simple fact is that from 1950 to the present time unemployment has varied between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. We really ought to get down to the issue. Of course, the Irish Sea is a problem, but we have to overcome it because we are dealing with human beings and not statistics.
  I have read the Hall Report, although I did not go through every single paragraph and consider every dot and comma. Unlike most hon. Members, I find that I have to try to grasp a report as quickly as possible, as otherwise life is not worth while. I am in complete agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West that this Report offers no solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies want to solve this problem they have to face the fact that the only solution so long as we have this Government in power is to put maximum pressure on their Front Bench.
  Look at the history of Northern Ireland. Why are hon. Members opposite not putting maximum pressure on their Front Bench? All the hon. Members from that area are Tories. If this Government have no responsibility to them and they are charged with the responsibility of looking after their constituents, which the Government are not prepared to do, who is to assist them in that responsibility? The Government will not do it unless the hon. Members
  1520
  will take courage in their own hands and treat the Government in the way they ought to be treated. It is no good trying to hide this fact.
  Mr. George Lawson: Will my hon. Friend explain how he thinks hon. Members from Ulster can apply this pressure when, no matter what Government there is here, they will still be returned to this House with a majority of 20,000 or 30,000?
  Mr. Loughlin: I know it is a foregone conclusion that they will be returned to this House. I do not know how they will apply the pressure. That is up to them, but I can tell them how they could apply pressure. That would be by going into the Lobby against the Tory Party this evening and saying, "We are not tolerating any longer the altitude of this Tory Government to Northern Ireland."
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Does not my hon. Friend think that with majorities of 20,000 and 30,000 they could afford to be rebels against the Government?
  Mr. Loughlin: Of course they could be rebels against the Government.
  Mr. Ross: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in 1951, when unemployment there was over 10 per cent., they could have brought the Government down by exerting pressure?
  Mr. Loughlin: I hope that my hon. Friends do not mind my intervening by making a speech.
  I want to draw the attention of hon. Members from Northern Ireland to a particular section of the Report. This is the nub of the problem. It says, in paragraph 191:
  "The scope of economic planning in the first sense is therefore very limited, since the powers of the Government of Northern Ireland are themselves limited. It has no power over tariffs; its powers of taxation are very limited; there is no central bank and no possibility of pursuing a separate monetary policy."
  Hon. Members, talking about the Report, have been saying that they should attract tourists to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North told the House that the greatest attraction from a tourist point of view would be the introduction of a 1-inch Ordnance map. I can imagine him publishing advertisements in newspapers in

  1521
  the United States of America saying, "come to Northern Ireland. We have some 1-inch Ordnance maps."
  Mr. Ross: Printed in Ireland.
  Mr. Loughlin: Why did they not attack the Government over Short Brothers and Harland? The classic example of how the Government could assist the Northern Ireland people is in the aircraft industry. The Government own 69½ per cent. of the shares in Short's, who have designed, developed and built some wonderful aircraft.
  I direct the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, now sitting on the Front Bench, to an aircraft concerning which there has been discussion in recent months—the Belfast. According to all the experts, this is an extremely good transport aircraft. It could be adapted for the use of the British Forces, which, I understand, are in dire need of transport aircraft. We are still playing about, however, with the inadequate Beverley.
  I do not claim to be an expert and I hope that when the Government reply to the debate I may be corrected, but the Belfast transport aircraft is so constructed that its doors are wide enough to trans-ship all types of military equipment. They are wide enough to allow of parachute drops of all types of article. The Belfast has a seating capacity of 249, is extremely cheap in operation and is a well-designed aircraft. The Government have placed an order for ten of them.
  Mr. Ross: Eventually.
  Mr. Loughlin: Yes, eventually; they have put in the order. To cover the cost of design and development, however, it will be necessary to sell 30 of these aircraft.
  According to the Minister of Defence, we are spending £300 million on the aircraft industry.
  Mr. Lee: Annually.
  Mr. Loughlin: That is what I meant. If anybody should know, it is the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), who is now Minister of Defence. He is particularly keen on the spending of Government money.
  1522
  If the Government are keen to solve the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland, why do they not concentrate some of the assistance in the aircraft industry by advancing the orders for more Belfast aircraft? This would do two things. It would help in part the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland, but it would also give the country a transport aircraft of first-class design and cheaper in operation than almost any other transport aircraft which could be secured.
  Mr. Lee: There is the vertical takeoff machine, too.
  Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to go too fully into this, because, possibly, some of my hon. Friends will have suggestions to make.
  There is no sense of urgency of any kind in tackling the problem. The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West referred to the difficulties that a skilled worker faces in getting a trade union card. One of the ways to solve a problem of this kind would be by both sides of industry coming together to increase productivity in the existing industries. This would place them in a much better competitive position.
  England, Scotland and Wales have had experience of increasing productivity. I know that some hon. Members opposite regard me as being revolutionary. For a number of years I was a trade union official and participated in every form of co-operation in industry with a view to improving the efficiency of the industries with which I was associated. I found that with any kind of workers, provided that they had confidence that, through their representatives, they would be consulted at every stage, it was possible to introduce any new method or process in order to increase productivity. If the trade unions are given their rightful place in industry that will happen.
  Sooner or later, whether we are dealing with the British or the Northern Ireland industry, or industry anywhere else, there will have to be a recognition that the ordinary industrial worker makes as great a contribution to the success and prosperity of an organisation as anyone else employed there. The idea that we can segregate manual workers from those

  1523
  termed "the staff" or the "executive" is archaic, and the sooner we get rid of it the better it will be for industry.
  In Northern Ireland there has been almost a universal acceptance of the need for co-operation in industry. But the Government refuse to recognise the organised body of trade union work-people. We cannot achieve a sense of co-operation in industry. I wonder how long the present Government would be able to ignore the British T.U.C. or how long they would be able to say to Frank Cousins—if hon. Members do not like my quoting Frank Cousins I will refer to the former general secretary of my own union, the Union of Shop Distributives and Allied Workers—Alan Birch. I would quote the present general secretary, except that he is a new man who may not be so well known. But do hon. Members think that the Government could ignore Alan Birch?
  Mr. Willis: They would like to.
  Mr. Loughlin: They would like to, as my hon. Friend says, but they would not succeed in doing so.
  It is impossible to ignore the British T.U.C. In Northern Ireland there is a trade union committee which is part of the Irish Trade Unions Congress, but 95 per cent. of the membership are members of the British trade union movement. The Government of Northern Ireland refuse to recognise or to consult them.
  Though this is the attitude of the Government in Northern Ireland, I place a large share of the responsibility on this Government, whose job it is to see that industry goes to Northern Ireland. The day-to-day operations in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. If we want to look at the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland, first we must tackle the Government Front Bench in this House and then deal with the affairs in Northern Ireland. A prerequisite for the real expansion of existing industries is a recognition of the trade union movement which has a part to play and an invaluable contribution to make.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newton referred to a development corporation. There is in Northern Ireland
  1524
  the Development Council, to which reference is made in this Report. The Council has simply been a glorified advertising agency with no teeth and no power to act. It simply advertises in one way or another, or sends an ambassador and attaches him to a given country to attract industry. I am not saying that new industries have not been attracted, but what is fundamental is that there has not been a sufficient attraction of industries of the kind which should be attracted to Northern Ireland to solve its problems.
  It is not just industries which Northern Ireland wants to attract. It must attract the industries which will solve its unemployment problems. There is a great need for a development corporation in Ireland with powers to do what is necessary. Although I would not care to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton, with a development corporation one must be a little careful about complete powers. If a development corporation as an advisory body to the Government is set up, it can advise on all aspects of policy. Whilst its job would chiefly be to attract new industry, it would have to have something to say about grants to be given and the type of industry which should receive them.
  I do not criticise small industries, but, in the context of the Northern Ireland unemployment situation, to spend £1 million in seven years on grants for laundries and quarries does not seem to me to be the right way to spend the money necessary to produce industry.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: Surely small industries are better than none?
  Mr. Loughlin: Small industries are better than none. I have quarries in my constituency. I should be the last to suggest that they should go somewhere else. Indeed, they would have difficulty in going anywhere else. The same is true of laundries. But are laundries and quarries the type of industry to solve this problem? Would it not be better to try to utilise the money to attract high labour ratio industries? This is what Ireland must do if it is to solve the problem.
  The development corporation would not only advise and distribute the grants, but it would be essential for it to develop on the research side. This would be one of

  1525
  its primary functions. One of the problems is that private capital in Ireland is not spending sufficient money on development. It was a development corporation that developed the Hovercraft. If a development corporation devoted itself to research, it could make a great contribution to solving Ireland's problems.
  I do not want to spend too long, because other hon. Members want to speak, but it would be unseemly for me if I did not make reference to one of the recommendations in the Hall Report. The Committee said that too much public works development was out but that Ireland could do something in housing. The Report is not too clear as to the extent of what it could do, but we should recognise what could be done about housing if there was the will. The Northern Ireland housing situation is bad. Belfast alone has 7,000 applicants on the waiting list, according to my information. About 43 per cent. of its housing stock is composed of pre-1880 houses, almost double the figure for England and Wales.
  Further, many building workers there are unemployed. This is to me a fantastic situation. When we examine the statistics, we find that there are carpenters, bricklayers, handymen, masons, slaters and plasterers all unemployed. We have to devise a method of bringing together the materials and the workpeople to resolve the housing problem in Northern Ireland in a manner which will perform two purposes. One is to solve the housing problem from a habitation point of view, and the other is to create employment. In housing and in public works, one of the values of those two methods of expansion is that it has a snowballing effect which will make a greater impact on the employment situation than appears on the surface. The Roosevelt New Deal clearly demonstrated that.
  I say to the people of Northern Ireland that if they have to rely on the Hall Committee's Report and on the British Government and, regretfully, though I have to say it, if they have to rely on the tactics of those Members who represent Northern Ireland in this House, I am sorry for them, because they will languish for many years to come.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) referred to
  1526
  the tactics of the Conservative Members of Parliament. I see nothing in the tactics of Members opposite. It was about half an hour ago that the hon. Gentleman said that he would make a short speech because a number of Northern Ireland Members wished to speak. I am very sorry that others of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have been kept out of the debate by the long-windedness of the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks were more notable for their verbosity than for their good sense.
  The counties of Northern Ireland have been very exhaustively inquired into in this Report. Some hon. Members have been honest enough, including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, to admit that they have read only bits and pieces of it——
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member must not misquote me. I read the Report, but I did so in the same way as all hon. Members read reports—I read it in a speedy and not a detailed way.
  Mr. McMaster: I can agree that there is inefficiency in reading in a speedy fashion. The Hall Committee was set up with very short terms of reference. They were:
  "To examine and report on the economic situation of Northern Ireland, the factors causing the persistent problem of high unemployment, and what measures can be taken to bring about a lasting improvement."
  The Committee dealt most adequately with the first two of these three requirements, but I must inform the House, and particularly my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, that the conclusions it reached on the last point have caused a great deal of concern in Northern Ireland, and especially in my constituency. It dealt adequately with this great problem of persistent and heavy unemployment. It dealt at some length with the reasons why there was such persistent unemployment with the rundown of the linen industry.
  In my constituency I have one of the largest linen mills, if not the largest, in Northern Ireland, and a well-equipped one, the York Street Linen Company, which has had to close down within the last two or three years. We have heard a lot about shipbuilding tonight and that the engineering and metal industries are also suffering from some contraction,

  1527
  that agriculture is badly affected and, according to the Report, likely to be even more badly affected in the next four, five or even ten years. A rundown of about 15,000 people is forecast in agriculture. At the same time, there is an increase of 4,000 or 5,000 in the working population each year.
  These are problems which the Northern Ireland Government, in the first instance, are called upon to face, and that Government have taken steps—which, unfortunately, I cannot go into because of the lateness of the hour—which are commented on very favourably in the Hall Report. There are certain matters which come particularly within the realm of the Imperial Parliament and Her Majesty's Government here, and I am very pleased to see present the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport—and the Minister of Aviation was with us earlier—because I want to refer to the problems facing two of the largest and seriously affected industries in Northern Ireland.
  The shipbuilding yard of Messrs. Harland and Wolff is in my constituency. It is the single biggest shipbuilding yard in the British Isles—indeed, it is the largest single shipbuilding yard in the world. Since the end of the war, until fairly recently, it employed up to 23,000 men every year. The firm benefited from the crises in Korea and Suez, but it had been working full out ever since the beginning of the war in order to build, first, the naval vessels needed for our defence, and, later, to replace the shipping losses we suffered during the war. In 1961 it was suddenly hit by the world recession in shipping, and 10,000 men were laid off during last year.
  There are certain ways in which the Imperial Government could help this industry—not just Harland and Wolff alone, because I am not advocating that help should be extended only to one yard but to all the shipbuilding yards in Britain. In our foreign affairs, we should adopt a more positive and dynamic policy towards such countries as the United States, France, Italy, Japan, and even some of our own Commonwealth countries, which have adopted shipping and
  1528
  shipbuilding policies that are very much to our disadvantage.
  Continental countries subsidise their shipbuilding quite openly, France and Italy being the worst offenders. The United States practises flag discrimination, insisting that cargoes coming to America should be carried in much more expensive American ships, which are financed by the Americans and which fly flags of convenience, all to the disadvantage of British shipping. I emphasise shipping here, because on a prosperous British shipping industry our shipbuilding depends.
  I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to take very much to heart the advice that has been given to him by the Chamber of Shipping, and I was encouraged by a speech he made in Belfast very recently when he said that the Government were considering retaliating against countries which adopted and habitually practised such unfair methods as those I have mentioned. This theme was also repeated by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a speech made at a Chamber of Commerce dinner. All the support that this House can give should be given in order to achieve a firmer policy by Her Majesty's Government in matters relating to shipping and shipbuilding, because of the very great importance of these basic industries, not only to Northern Ireland, where they play a fundamental part in our economy, but to the country as a whole. We are a maritime nation. We live by trade and that trade must be carried in our ships, so that we cannot easily accept policies adopted and operated by foreign countries which are damaging to us.
  I should like to develop this at greater length but time does not permit, and I want to say something about Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland. A number of hon. Members have mentioned this industry in East Belfast and I appeal to the Government to consider the points which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no doubt that when faced with an emergency—such as that in India in recent weeks—it is necessary, for the defence of our interests in the West and the free world, that we should be in a position to give military aid to the free

  1529
  countries of the world when they are attacked.
  For this reason we need to transport a variety of articles to the danger spots. It is surprising how many things one does not think about when planning ahead. One must carry all types of equipment, things as unlikely as bulldozers for levelling airfields, rocketry and helicopters. The Belfast air freighter, about which a good deal has been said in the House, was designed specifically to meet this requirement, for it can carry four helicopters and even a tank.
  However, only ten of these aircraft have been ordered and I urge the Home Secretary to convey to the Minister of Aviation—and I regret that he has had to leave the Chamber—this point of view, to ask him to reconsider our tactical and strategic needs in the light of the emergency which occurred in recent weeks and to see whether ten Belfasts are sufficient to meet these needs. The Minister of Aviation should consider this matter from the point of view of our meeting what is known as the OR351—the operational requirement for the Beverleys and Hastings—and seeing whether a derivative of the Belfast would be suitable for meeting our defence needs and, at the same time, helping to solve the unemployment problem in Belfast.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the hon. Member also bear in mind economic aid in the light of the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT last Monday, in col. 636? Aid of this kind for the under-developed countries could be supplied through the under-utilised resources of this country.
  Mr. McMaster: I turn to a subject which was omitted from the Hall Report. No mention is made of the valuable work being done in apprenticeship training. This is a fundamental matter in Belfast, for it is a high-class and skilled form of training which forms the nucleus of our ability to attract new industries to Northern Ireland.
  In The Times and in some other newspapers today is an advertisement about the Seacat. All the technical skill of the engineers in Belfast is now being adopted by many countries in this defensive weapon. Another important
  1530
  Belfast project is the Skyvan, which several overseas countries have found interesting and in which several airlines are interested. This requires additional finance to assist its development. It is a small aircraft meant to operate rather like a commercial van.
  I have pointed these developments out—and the Skyvan, which can carry a wide variety of machinery and equipment, needs more money for its development—n an effort to get my right hon. Friend to convey to the Minister of Aviation the necessity for him to have second thoughts on these matters.
  The vertical take-off plane, SC1, was pioneered in Belfast. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, in answer to a question on Monday, said that the Government were still considering the application of this multi-jet Vertical take-off aircraft far transport purposes. Part of this work could also very well be done by our engineers in Belfast.
  But I must leave that point because I want to deal with the main topic cat our discussion, and I cannot rest with the solution of the problem which is set out in paragraph 32 of the Hall Report where it is said—and I paraphrase—that the Committee sees no hope in the next five years of any improvement in our unemployment position. It is surely the function of Government to provide for the prosperity of the people, to provide, first, for full employment and then to improve conditions. The Hall Committee dealt with the rising standard of living in Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole and pointed out that it still lags behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The question has been posed many times today: what is the solution to the problem? How do we attract new industry to Northern Ireland? I do not accept the Socialist solution of directing industry, any more than I accept directing labour from Northern Ireland to England. In the final analysis, when one attempts to direct unwilling industry to any area it will not settle happily and be run efficiently and prosperously there.
  The schemes adopted by the Northern Ireland Government offering capital grants to industry to attract firms and

  1531
  new industry to go there of their own free will, because they believe that in Northern Ireland they will find the work-people they want, the productivity they require and the Government assistance they need, is the best way of meeting our problem.
  Dr. Bray Dr. Bray rose—
  Mr. McMaster: I am sorry. It is too late now, if the hon. Member will forgive me.
  Two methods were discussed in the Hall Committee Report. There was the suggestion put forward by the Northern Ireland Government that there should be a subsidy for each employed person. This was rejected by the Committee for a number of reasons, including the economic reason—and after all the Committee was led by an economist—that this would encourage or might help to keep alive a failing industry which would not be for the long-term benefit of Northern Ireland.
  However, another matter was considered—though I regret only very briefly—in paragraph 122 and the following four or five paragraphs of the Report. This was the suggestion that a tax holiday should be offered to firms coming to Northern Ireland. I should like to ask the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this proposal most seriously. It is not a new suggestion. It was used in Great Britain before the war. It was used in France and Italy and even by our neighbour Eire and in Malta successfully to attract new industries.
  A tax inducement such as this favours efficient firms. It does not help to keep inefficient firms alive. It does not necessarily cost the Treasury anything, because the suggestion is that this tax holiday should be offered as an alternative to the capital grants which are at present offered by the Northern Ireland Government, and firms would be free to choose. The Hall Committee pointed out in paragraph 125:
  "The Board of Inland Revenue has pointed out that there would be difficulties of administration and serious risks of abuse."
  This is a typical Civil Service answer. Is it a good enough and sufficient answer to turn down these proposals?
  1532
  A much greater degree of flexibility is necessary, and flexibility could certainly be worked out. It is not beyond the ingenuity of our tax officials, for whom I have a certain degree of admiration, to work out a scheme whereby such an inducement as a tax holiday for a limited period of seven to twelve years could be offered to new industry, and particularly to labour-intensive industry, to set up in Northern Ireland.
  Unless this is done, we in Northern Ireland shall face great difficulty in competing with industries in the Republic of Ireland. New industry has been attracted there and has benefited from it, and our new industries in Northern Ireland must compete with industries already enjoying this tax advantage. This is a consideration not mentioned or considered at all, apparently, by the Hall Committee.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) said, we are also, perhaps, about to enter the Common Market, but whether we do so or not, I believe, as she does, that we must solve our unemployment problem straightaway as a matter of urgency. If Britain joins the Common Market, there might be considerable obstacles to extending such a scheme as I have suggested, which would undoubtedly help Northern Ireland.
  I conclude by saying that I believe that the solutions to our problems in Northern Ireland are just within our grasp. If the Government would only be prepared to take the plunge, and if the Treasury will make this sacrifice to administrative convenience, I think that Northern Ireland could share fully in the rising productivity and full employment which is enjoyed in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) for the optimistic tone of his speech, because I am quite certain that the one condition in which we cannot solve the unemployment problem is in an atmosphere of gloom and disaster.
  I should like to tell the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and the House that the reason why I did not speak first but

  1533
  moved the Motion formally, leaving the Floor free to him to move his Amendment, was because I knew that we should have a debate of only three or four hours and I thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would prefer me to use my time to take up the points raised from both sides during the debate rather than to make a set speech at the outset. Indeed, if I had spoken as long as the hon. Member, no one from the back benches would have had a chance to rise before half-past seven.
  I should like to join in the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to the work which my predecessor did for Northern Ireland. I know that the First Secretary had a deep concern for his Northern Ireland responsibilities. I think it is important, despite all the interchanges and pleasantries across the Floor of the House, for all of us to keep in mind the whole time the fact that we are dealing with an essentially human problem. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that he knew what it was to be unemployed. Let us all think of these matters in these terms. There are people—our own fellow-citizens—who are at the present time unemployed in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and unemployment is more severe in Northern Ireland than it is elsewhere. It is quite right that we should have our differences and challenges, but we are talking about human beings all the time.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West alleged that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North had made no constructive suggestions in his speech. That simply was not true, because I took a note of what he said. He was the first hon. Member in the debate to suggest a joint permanent committee of members of both Governments—and I shall return to that point later—and who made the original suggestion of a Minister of State who could keep special contact with Northern Ireland. The parallel with Wales is not complete, because Wales is administered as part of—or rather along with—England, though with much devolution to Cardiff, whereas Northern Ireland is under a separate Government. I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, was right to urge that we should all help to blow away the clouds of pessimism
  1534
  and create an atmosphere of confidence, because, unless that atmosphere of confidence is created, there is no hope for these people who are at present unemployed.
  The hon. Member for Newton described Northern Ireland in terms of disaster which would deter any forward looking industrialist from coming and opening a factory there. That is the one fatal and unforgivable thing to do. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) spoke of ever-increasing unemployment in Northern Ireland. It simply is not true. In fact, unemployment in Northern Ireland is now lower than it was a year ago. But it is much too high.
  Mr. McLeavy: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. When I spoke of ever-increasing unemployment—if he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that this is right—I was referring to the general situation both in Northern Ireland and the British Isles generally.
  Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept my statement that unemployment in Northern Ireland is lower now than it was twelve months ago.
  The truth about Northern Ireland is that, owing to the gradual decline of employment in the older staple industries, the really striking success which has been attained in attracting new industry to Northern Ireland has been off-set and has not marked up an equivalent net gain of employment.
  It is, of course, fantastic to speak, as some hon. Members opposite have done, of lack of effort by one Government or another. The general standard of living in Northern Ireland at present is probably higher than it has ever been in history. There is this unemployment, and we must reduce it. But to imagine that if one goes to Belfast one will find nobody able to afford a car or able to afford a washing machine or refrigerator is to be utterly remote from reality, as, I am sure, my hon. Friends will confirm. The black spot is the 7 per cent. unemployment.
  The value of the Hall Report is that it concentrates attention on essentials. It shows beyond doubt that there are no simple remedies or expedients by which

  1535
  one can cure unemployment if only one would decide to do so. It shows that the secret of doing it cannot be found to lie in new-fangled though unsound ideas. The essence of the Hall Report is that the secret lies in showing to the world for all to see the attractions of Northern Ireland as a site for industry and persuading business men to locate or develop their factories there.
  I could not understand why one hon. Member attacked the Northern Ireland Development Council as a sort of grandiose advertising agency. Surely, that is exactly what we want. Anybody who has valuable goods to sell spends money and effort in advertising them. Otherwise, how will anyone know about them? Are we to be ashamed of the economic opportunities which Northern Ireland possesses? Above all, what all of us, regardless of party, ought to do is to let the world know that in Northern Ireland there is a very experienced population, hard working and anxious for work, living in a country with great potentialities and great beauty, a population ever determined to go on and get ahead.
  Mr. Loughlin: I should not like to convey the impression that I was condemning the Council. What I said was that its activities have been restricted to being a glorified advertising agency, but I went on to say that what we wanted was another organisation with some teeth.
  Mr. Brooke: Lord Chandos, who has put a great deal of work into the Northern Ireland Development Council, has told me that there is excellent liaison between his organisation, the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland and the Board of Trade in London. There are jobs for all to do here.
  I was saying that we must advertise all that is good in and all the potentiality of Northern Ireland. That is what the British Government have successfully done in South Wales where the unemployment clouds which hung so heavily four years ago, as I well remember, have now largely been lifted. I am convinced that this is the one policy not only to remedy unemployment in Northern Ireland but to set Northern Ireland firmly on the road to modernity and long-term prosperity.
  Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the slur in the Report on the productivity of workers in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Brooke: I do not think it is for me, in this debate, to correct anything that is said in the Report. I am certainly prepared to say that any business man who wishes to develop in Northern Ireland will find that men and women are anxious to work and to give of their best. Many of them need only the opportunity and training—I stress that—to be highly productive.
  I am sure that it was right for the two Governments to join together in setting up this Joint Working Party. May I express my deep regret that Sir Herbert Brittain, the first Chairman of it, died before the inquiry was completed. He was a personal friend of mine. He was an admirable appointment as the original Chairman, and it was a tragedy for us all that he was not allowed to complete the inquiry.
  Although there has been criticism of the final form of the Report, I think that we would all wish to express our appreciation to those who did the work of compiling it, to Sir Robert Hall, his colleagues and secretariat. Whether or not we agree with its conclusions and inferences, we all, with respect to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), feel that a great deal of useful information, if not all the information that we would wish, is set out in the Report.
  I do not think there has been much challenge in the debate of the assessment of the existing position in Northern Ireland contained in the Report. As it indicates, Northern Ireland has a live and vigorous economy. It is far from stagnant. Northern Ireland is in a phase of economic transition, but the liveliness and anxiety to break out and create a new modern-based industrial economy is unquestionably there. It is important to note that the financial aids to industrial expansion have provided about 50,000 new jobs since the war, and many thousands of other new jobs are in the pipeline.
  We have to speed up the expansion so that it more than offsets the inevitable decline in some of the old staple industries which we have seen in a number of

  1537
  parts of Great Britain—for example, in the cotton industry and in the coal industry in certain parts. We cannot escape from these unavoidable economic developments. I am convinced that this can be done in Northern Ireland, and, as long as I hold my present position, I pledge myself to do everything in my power, working with the United Kingdom Government, to assist the Northern Ireland Government in solving these problems.
  I wish to refer to several items arising from the Hall Report. The oil fuel subsidy recommended in the Report is entirely new. It is accepted by both Governments, and plans are in train to bring it into existence. I think that it will be a valuable supplement to the coal subsidy.
  Then there is this question of the carriage of freight by air to and from Northern Ireland. I was asked if I could say anything further about that. The position is that the Air Transport Licensing Board has agreed to be responsible for the promotion of a study of these possibilities, and the Board itself is now considering the scope of the inquiry and the method of work. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, who heard the references earlier in the debate to this subject, would confirm that these matters will be determined quickly between himself and the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce, and that study will go forward.
  I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) who asked about the House Committee on sea transport. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has now received that Report and he proposes to publish it, and the further consideration which was promised by the two Governments of the effects of costs of sea transport in Northern Ireland industry is now in hand.
  The Hall Report confirmed the value of existing financial inducements. To my hon. Friend for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), I should like to say that if he discussed the idea of a tax holiday with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would find that there are very grave difficulties in the way of it. It would be much easier to provide a tax holiday in a small and self-contained country. But it might be
  1538
  a matter of some Great Britain firm opening a subsidiary in Northern Ireland. It would be extremely difficult to allocate the profits successfully as between the one establishment and the other. I can even imagine that some firms might find so attractive the idea of a tax holiday that there would be a surreptitious shift of profits. These things, I must say to my hon. Friend, are not as easy when we come to see how they could be put into practice.
  But, in accordance with the Flail Report, industrial derating is to be maintained in Northern Ireland; substantial financial assistance is to be continued to co-operative publicity by the linen industry; and there is to be an increase in the housing programme. May I say, as a former United Kingdom Minister of Housing, that when I have been in Northern Ireland I have been impressed by the possibilities of speeding up the housing programme? I think it will very much depend on whether the resources of the industry, including skilled labour resources, can be suitably made available to carry out the scheme, but I am quite sure it does offer a very important chance both of improving the economy and of improving the basis of Northern Ireland life. [Interruption.] Let us try to make sure that in this expansion of the housing programme to which the Northern Ireland Government have committed themselves any skilled labour there is in the building industry is brought into use. It has been agreed in accordance with the recommendation of the Hall Report that the temporary additional subsidy of £11 per house, the subsidy which was previously financed from the special Customs surcharge, should continue now as a charge on ordinary Revenue.
  I was asked about the employment subsidy. That we are not disposed to go forward with; not for the reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, in her, if I may say so, excellent speech, suggested, that it was because of possible Common Market implications: it was rather because in areas of declining industry we think that the maximum effort should be directed to measures which are designed to attract new growth industries. The United Kingdom Government believe that an employment subsidy of the kind which had been proposed if it were applied

  1539
  indiscriminately to all productive industries, might in the long term have the opposite effect to that intended by impeding the flow of labour into those industries which are growing and which it is essential to encourage.
  Moreover, such a subsidy might very well be extremely expensive in relation to the results which it might achieve, and, as my hon. Friend also mentioned, once started it would be difficult to put any limit to it. We examined carefully the possibility of confining the subsidy to industries with high possibilities of growth, but it was quite impossible to draw any discriminating line there. We also examined the possibility of a subsidy related to increases in employment, and exclusively to that, but we were driven to the conclusion that there is no form of employment subsidy which would not be open to such difficulties and objections that it would be impracticable, and which in relation to the difficulties and obstacles would make a substantial enough and lasting enough improvement to the unemployment problem.
  Mr. Douglas Jay Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose——
  Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman because so many hon. Members have asked me questions to which I wish to reply.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East asked me about Harland and Wolff. All shipbuilders everywhere are facing difficulties at the moment because of a world surplus of shipbuilding capacity. Competition for what orders there are is getting keen. Harland and Wolff has what in present circumstances is a fair amount of orders in hand. It has an assault ship for the Navy, tankers for BP, a tanker for carrying liquid methane, a cargo liner and three tramps. I do not think it is doing too badly by comparison with the other large yards in the United Kingdom.
  The changes in capital allowances announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day should certainly be a help to shipbuilders like Harland and Wolff which are showing their confidence in the future
  1540
  of the industry by putting capital in modernisation and re-equipment.
  My hon. Friend also referred to Short Bros. and Harland. I should like to join him in expressing praise of its apprentice training scheme. I saw it myself when I was there, and was greatly impressed by it.
  Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my query about aircraft?
  Mr. Brooke: I was just about to deal with the aircraft. The position is that the two Governments have together agreed that the necessary steps should be taken to provide the finance which is needed to enable Shorts to complete the current order for ten Belfast aircraft. It seems that a sum in the region of £10 million may be involved; so this is very material assistance to employment in Northern Ireland.
  Following the recent decision to place a further order for VC.10 military transport aircraft, negotiations are taking place for a substantial share of that work to be sub-contracted to Short's. Short's is one of the companies Which have submitted designs for an aircraft to replace the Hastings and the Beverley in the Royal Air Force. It is not possible for a decision on this requirement to be taken yet, but the Government fully appreciate the importance of an early decision to both Short's and the rest of the aircraft industry.
  The House will be aware that negotiations are in progress with the French over a proposed joint project for building a supersonic airliner. Neither I nor anyone else can say at the moment whether these negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion, but if they are that project will provide a goad deal of work for the aircraft industry as a whole. I cannot say what, if any, of that work will go to Short's, but Short's, like the whole of the industry, is suffering from a lack of overall work, and the mere fact that if these negotiations come to fruition it will add a great block of work to the load on the industry is, I would judge, bound to help all firms throughout the industry.
  I have no time to dwell on agricultural development, although I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for

  1541
  Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) said about it, and I assure him that not only my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture but I myself will bear in mind always the small farmers of Ulster. I was immensely impressed by what I saw of the reconstruction of a small farm when I was last in Northern Ireland. One could see how opportunities were being taken, and it will be extremely interesting to see the result of the sugar beet experiment mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  The main issue must be industrial development. Northern Ireland is given by the Board of Trade treatment equal to that which is accorded to the most needy development districts in Great Britain. Special arrangements have been made for the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland to be notified by the Board of Trade of any firms interested in expanding. The House may care to know that thirty-two additional names have been notified by the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Commerce since the beginning of the financial year.
  A number of firms are undoubtedly waiting to see what will come of the Common Market negotiations. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Newton, if I recollect rightly, did not mention the Common Market. My own view, which is shared by many others, is that if an early decision should be reached for us to enter that would be one of the best possible pieces of news for Northern Ireland because of the American firms which are waiting to see whether it will be possible for them, by setting up in Northern Ireland to get the benefit of being in—may I say?—an English-speaking country while at the same time having the whole market of Europe at hand.
  I have been asked about various forms of advisory council. It is really for the Northern Ireland Government to judge whether an economic advisory council would assist or be a fifth wheel to the coach. But when hon. Members opposite talk about an economic planning council, either they mean direction of industry or they mean nothing at all,
  and we must acept that. Do they mean that firms should be told that they are to go to Northern Ireland and set up there, profit or loss, success or failure? If not, economic planning means nothing in this context.
  Mr. Lee: What about "Neddy" then?
  Mr. Brooke: I said, in this context. That was why I was smiling at one point in the hon. Member's speech. No amount of Government planning will in itself turn an unsuccessful, unprofitable factory into a successful and profitable one of the type we have to attract to Northern Ireland.
  With respect to my hon. Friends, I do not believe that we need a joint permanent committee of Ministers of the two Governments. I am inclined to believe rather in informal and flexible arrangements. Equally I agree with them that we should not meet only when there is something contentious or critical to discuss. I want to ensure that there is complete collaboration, and I want to bring in other Ministers of the United Kingdom Government, as I am sure the Minister of Commerce would bring in members of his Government, if that would be fruitful, on any particular occasion.
  I know that the Minister of Labour sets great store by any help he can give to the Minister of Labour in Northern Ireland on training and retraining developments. I think that is perhaps the most important issue of all, other than the decision about the Common Market. If we can give any help to the Northern Ireland Government in improving and perfecting their training and retraining facilities we shall be extremely glad to do so. Meanwhile, we have the excellent news that Carreras is bringing a big factory to employ 1,500 people and Michelin is bringing a factory to employ 2,000 people. The Hall Report is not the final word. These two facts alone suffice to show it.
  Question put, That those words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 198.

  Division No. 7.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Blackburn, F.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blyton, William

  Bowles, Frank

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Boyden, James

  Baird, John

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. w.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hunter, A. E.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Parker, John

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Collick, Percy

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jeger, George

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Probert, Arthur

  Darling, George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Reynolds, G, W.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dodds, Norman

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Ross, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Lawson, George

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Short, Edward

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Evans, Albert

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Slater, Mrs. Harrlet (Stoke, N.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Lipton, Marcus

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Calpern, Sir Myer

  MacColl, James

  Steele, Thomas

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Stonehouse, John

  Grey, Charles

  McLeavy, Frank

  Stones, William

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swingier, Stephen

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Marsh, Richard

  Taverne, D.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mason, Roy

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Gunter, Ray

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Milan, Bruce

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward

  Wade, Donald

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Warbey, William

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Monslow, Walter

  Weitzman, David

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hewitson Capt. M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Willey, Frederick

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Holman, Percy

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Holt, Arthur

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hooson, H. E.

  Owen, Will

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Houghton, Douglas

  Padley, W. E.

  Zillacus, K.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Paget, R. T.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. McCann and Mr. Whitlock.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Allason, James

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Cunningham, Knox

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Barber, Anthony

  Curran, Charles

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Barter, John

  Currie, G. B. H

  Hendry, Forbes

  Batsford, Brian

  Dance, James

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Holland, Philip

  Bell, Ronald

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hornby, R. P.

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Doughty, Charles

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Biffen, John

  du Cann, Edward

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Elliot Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Errington, Sir Eric

  James, David

  Bossom, Clive

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Farr, John

  Jennings, J. C.

  Box, Donald

  Fisher, Nigel

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Brewis, John

  Forrest, George

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Gammans, Lady

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Cough, Frederick

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Green, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Gresham Cooke, R,

  Longbottom, Charles

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Longden, Gilbert

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  1544

  1545

  McArthur, Ian

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  McLaren, Martin

  Peel, John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  McLaughlin, Mrs, Patricia

  Percival, Ian

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Pott, Percivall

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Pym, Francis

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Maitland, Sir John

  Ramsden, James

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Marten, Neil

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Webster, David

  Mills, Stratton

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Whitelaw, William

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Morgan, William

  Roots, William

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wise, A. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Russell, Ronald

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  St. Clair, M.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Worsley, Marcus

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sharples, Richard

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd Chiswlck)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Mr. Chichester-Clark

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Speir, Rupert

  and Mr. Finlay.

  Main Question put and agreed to.

  Resolved,

  That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Command Paper No. 1835).

  CUTLERY AND FLATWARE INDUSTRY (RESEARCH LEVY)
  10.10 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move,
  That the Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.
  This Order, if it is approved by Parliament, will be made under the authority of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. As the House will recall, this Act provides that charges may be imposed by Order on persons engaged in an industry if it thought to be expedient for funds to be made available for various purposes of which the most important is scientific research. Two years ago the cutlery industry asked that a levy should be imposed on firms in the industry to provide funds which, with a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, would finance the cost of collective scientific research on behalf of the industry by the Cutlery Research Council. As a result of this approach, the 1960 Order came into operation on 1st January, 1961. The grant from the D.S.I.R. was made conditional on the scale of research being expanded at the end of two years and this involves an increase in the industrial contribution towards the cost as well as an increase in the amount of the Government grant.
  The primary purpose of this Order, which replaces that made two years ago, is to increase the contribution from the industry from £9,000 a year to just on £14,000. On an industrial income of £9,000 the D.S.I.R. grant has been £6,000. But when £14,000 a year is contributed by the industry the Government grant will rise to £9,000. Therefore, as a result of the Order the amount available for research will be increased from £15,000 to £23,000 a year. These resources will be used on research and development projects, a technical inquiry—sometimes referred to as the "trouble shooting" service—and the dissemination of scientific and technical information. Because labour costs account
  1548
  for between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the cost of the manufacture of cutlery and flatware the main research effort will be devoted to increasing the degree of mechanisation and to reducing the number of manufacturing operations. All British cutlery must sell abroad on quality and, therefore, improvements in quality must be and are intended to be an important and significant part of the research programme.
  That programme includes research on knife and scissor grinding, on multiple polishing, on abrasive operations and on the metallurgy of the edges of knives and scissors. The "trouble-shooting" service will absorb about 30 per cent. of the resources of the Research Association and the dissemination of information some 10 per cent. of those resources. These activities of the Research Association are particularly important in this industry which has so many very small firms specialising in one or a very few of the operations for the manufacture of cutlery and flatware.
  The basis on which the levy has been imposed for the last two years remains unchanged, but the rate has been increased by half to provide the additional income required and a general exemption of the first £3,000 of annual turnover has been introduced in place of the existing exemption of businesses with a turnover of less than £1,000 a year. The exemption of the first £3,000 of turnover will reduce the number of firms liable to pay the levy under the Order from 280 to about 190. This illustrates to the House the number of very small firms there are in this industry. This is a reduction of about one-third. Furthermore, it will relieve small firms with a turnover of less than £10,000 of any increase in their contribution. Therefore, only firms in the industry with a turnover of £10,000 or more will have to pay an increased contribution.
  The Cutlery Research Council, which has been responsible for this scientific research on behalf of the industry, has been reconstituted at the suggestion of the D.S.I.R. to bring its constutition into line with the common pattern of grant-aided research associations. It has now become an incorporated body under the title of the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association. This change is reflected in the Order.

  1549
  The opportunity provided by the need for a new Order to secure additional funds for scientific research has been taken to stop a loophole in the provisions of the 1960 Order in relation to businesses in the industry which change hands between the base period—that is to say, on the turnover of which the levy is charged—and the levy period.
  The Order 'has been drafted in complete accord with the wishes of the trade organisation representative of manufacturers in the industry, and with the support of the trade union to which the workpeople belong. The House will be pleased to know that the industry has an excellent export record amounting to roughly one-third of its annual production. The annual production of this industry as defined for the purposes of the Order is about £10 million a year and it is exporting about £3½ million. I believe that with the increased scientific research made possible by this increase in levy the industry will be able to meet increased competition at home and at the same time maintain and expand the substantial level of export it has achieved hitherto.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The 1960 Order passed through the House without any discussion. I think it is time that we had a look at the industry and what it has been doing. I begin by commenting on the constitutional position. These research associations, so far as they are not financed out of the trades in question, are financed by grants from the D.S.I.R. For the operations of the D.S.I.R. the noble Lord the Minister for Science and his Parliamentary Secretary, whom I am glad to see here tonight, are responsible to Parliament. The Orders, however, are brought forward by the Board of Trade. The money which is collected by the levy on the industry is paid to the Board of Trade. We have a diarchy of a kind which exemplifies the worst possible feature of the modern British Constitution.
  This is a question of research in trade, and those high powers who regulate these things should consider whether it is logical that not one but two Ministries should have an interfering hand in these matters. I should like to see the whole business of research and development
  1550
  handed over—I do not say to the D.S.I.R., although there is ground for saying that on its statutory responsibilities, but at any rate to the Minister for Science. That does not for one moment mean that I do not take anything but the most acute personal pleasure at seeing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade here tonight. It is one advantage of diarchy that we see two competent gentlemen instead of only one.
  With that friendly introduction, let us begin to see what the Order does. As I understand it, it does three things. One is a matter of perhaps comparatively small importance—a change in the form of the body which deals with research in the industry.
  Hitherto it has been a Council unincorporated, and all my researches have failed to tell me how it ever came into being. It seems to have just grown up, like Topsy. However, it grew up. We are now to proceed to the comparative respectability of a company for the purpose. I should like to know who is to be represented on that company and how the directors or shareholders—there will not be any shareholders presumably; I suppose that it will be a company by guarantee—the people who effectively run it are to be appointed, and whether there is any provision which will enable us to look at that appointment from time to time to see if it is working properly.
  The second thing that it does is to relieve the needy knife-grinder. The needy knife-grinder was, I think, invented by George Canning, who inquired where he was going and said that the road was rough and his wheel was out of order—"bleak blows the blast." At the moment we are rather passing the last Governmental depression. It was blowing quite bleak a little time ago and it may, perhaps, for this particular trade, be blowing a bit bleak, as I shall show in a minute, if we have to go into the Common Market. Finally, we end up by discovering that the needy knife-grinder's hat had a hole in it, and so had his breeches. I do not know what escaped through the hole, but apparently his technical intelligence is no longer to be financed out of his own purse which has slipped down through his breeches, and whoever is going to teach him what to do, it is not going to be done that way.

  1551
  I know that this trade is full of needy knife-grinders, but the number is tending to decrease, and I am not quite clear why it was necessary or advisable to take them out of the provisions of the levy. However, I have no doubt that there is some sufficient reason which we can be given for that.
  What I cannot follow is the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. The present levy amounts to £9,200, and I take that figure from the D.S.I.R. Report for 1961. The hon. Gentleman cannot differ from me much because he said that it was a little over £9,000. We add 50 per cent., that is to say, instead of 10s. on a certain turnover we have 15s. and we then deduct from it whatever is saved by letting the needy knife-grinder off. The result we get, apparently, is £14,000. That is not my arithmetic.
  I wish that the hon. Gentleman would tell us in a little more detail what is the effect of this Order. Is the levy on the ordinary members of the trade, if I may so put it, increased by 50 per cent.?—I understood that it was—and is that increase subject to a reduction, as I understand there is a twofold reduction, because he mentioned not only the needy knife-grinder but also another case in connection with a rather small turnover? Having added 50 per cent. to £9,200 which, if my arithmetic is right, would make it £13,000, and having taken from that figure an unknown sum but presumably of some importance, we then reach a figure of £14,000 which, as the late Mr. Euclid used to say, is absurd. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the correct figures. After all, this really is a very small sum. This is a trade which produces, we were told, about £10 million worth of stuff a year and it exports about one-third of that. It is, therefore, a very important trade. It should clearly have every attention, and the attention should be both prompt and sufficient. I can hardly feel that the attention is satisfactorily provided by a levy of £13,000 or £14,000 from the trade, and a D.S.I.R. grant that will now go up to £9,000 a year—£23,000 a year spent on research by an industry whose out-turn is about £10 million and which has a very important export function to fulfil.
  1552
  I was very glad to hear that the trade's export position is improving, because this research work is largely needed to enable our cutlery trade to compete with that of other countries. There is very good reason for helping this competition, because when the Working Party reported on the trade in 1947 the position was far from satisfactory. At that time, Germany accounted for 50 per cent. of the world's total cutlery exports, and the United Kingdom had only 22 per cent. I understand that this country imported more from Germany than we exported to Germany. What is the position now? If there has not been the very material improvement one would hope for, one makes two comments. First: what has the industry been doing with the money it has spent on research? Secondly—and I repeat this: is the amount now to be provided for research sufficient?
  When I turn to what the industry has been doing, I look at the same Report and I find a number of recommendations—with which I certainly will not dream of troubling the House in detail at this hour—in which the Working Party is very expansive about the research that is required. The mechanisation of the industry to which the hon. Gentleman has referred as something in the future was equally in the future in 1947. What has happened about mechanising the industry during the fifteen years from 1947 or, to shorten the time, what has happened to that mechanisation during the eleven years in which Tory Governments have been in power? What have Tory Governments done to see that these researches actually effected the kind of results hoped for in the Working Party Report?
  I turn from that Report to the 1961 annual report of this Cutlery Research Council, and I find a number of things proposed. They are all excellent things. I am no expert in making cutlery—and there are some very strange phrases in the trade, as anyone will find if they look at some of the processes mentioned in the Order—but it looks to my untutored eye as though a lot of the things in pages 6 and 7 of the last annual report that are now called research projects are things that were recommended fifteen years ago by the Working Party. If so, what has been done since then?
  This is a nice little, tight industry. They all get along very well with one

  1553
  another. Some of their premises are hopelessly insanitary, or were in 1947. The little master was an admirable figure, but, according to the Working Party Report, provided abominable conditions. It seems to be one of the industries that require a little watching from a Government concerned with the rather lamentable show that British industry has been making in recent years in comparison with the rest of the world. This really is an opportunity of pushing the industry forward a bit. Perhaps a slightly larger research grant might more than repay the additional money spent. A great deal of this depends on what we have not been told—though I hope that we shall be told—about the competitive position of the industry compared with the rest of the world.
  One does not get much light on that. It is true that they had a look around Germany and America, and I have with me their Report about it. It is interesting, and I think I summarise it fairly when I say that there is no doubt that there is a good deal of real, old skill in this industry in this country. There is also no doubt that, while some of the things they produce contain admirable workmanship—often in rather small quantities—it is very doubtful whether their progress has been quite sufficient.
  When one looks at the degree of mechanisation in the American industry, as shown in the Report about which I am speaking, one is, on the one hand, even more sympathetic with the Parliamentary Secretary's wish that there should he more mechanisation and, on the other, even more curious why there has been so little mechanisation in the past, particularly since the Working Party's Report was published not long after the end of the war.
  Thus, while one is not disposed to oppose the Order—indeed, one's feeling is that the amount proposed by way of levy is probably insufficient; certainly that the accompanying amount of D.S.I R. support does look insufficient—one is entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary which these people have been doing by way of research during the past 15 years, what is the present position compared with other countries on the export side, and is it really sufficient to secure the competitive position of this industry in what may well be a more
  1554
  draughty world if we go into the Common Market? Will the industry, when "bleak blows the blast," have holes in their hats and their breeches, in the words of Canning's needy knife grinder, and be able to stand up to the foreign competition of industries which, in America at any rate, are more highly mechanised?
  I come now to a small, personal confession which has some point. I am a little luxurious about nail scissors and I have long found that the best ones, alas, do not come from Sheffield. It may be that I have not gone to the right places or have not tried for long enough. But if that is so—and it certainly seems to be the case in some London shops—what is Sheffield doing about it? I do not know how much research is needed into nail scissors, and probably more is needed into other things, but I am not happy about the smell of this trade.
  I am not a Sheffield hon. Member and I suppose I can say things which a Sheffield hon. Member might jump upon, but we are interested in the export drive and the competitive position of the industry. It has not got a very good record in some things—premises and working conditions—and we are anxious that it should be modernised, particularly in those respects we must consider tonight the modernisation of its methods and what it is going, to do.
  Trouble-shooting is an excellent thing. We have quite a lot of it in the Boot and Shoe Research Association. For example: Question: "How is it that Little Harry's shoes collapsed after a week's wear?" Answer: "Because Little Harry chucked them in the fire when mummy was not looking." That is called "trouble-shooting", I have no doubt that the same sort of thing could be applied to table knives, for we can all readily think of appropriate questions and answers. But 30 per cent. of the total expenditure leads to the comment that while that may he all right for trouble-shooting, it does not leave enough for the rest of the expenditure we have in mind. It makes me feel that a hit more is needed. If the industry cannot afford it—and it may be that it cannot; there is some evidence for that in the papers. I see—then I think that the D.S.I.R. ought to do a little more about it.

  1555
  Lastly, I hope that the needy knife-grinders, the small men who are going to be exempted from the levy, even if they do not pay the levy will still be in a position to profit from any improvements which may be adduced to them, probably much smaller improvements than would affect the larger firms, and that full steps will be taken to see that not only are the researches made but also, so far as the Government can see, that they are applied and, at any rate, that the trade is informed of exactly what can be done.
  This is a rather sketchy Report, the last Report of the Research Council. I do not want to criticise it too much because no doubt it is so very much concentrated in the town of Sheffield that there are other means of disseminating information which may be just as good. Therefore, having asked the hon. Gentleman a number of questions and made some criticisms of his Order, none of what I have said being, as I see it, a ground for opposing the Order because it is mainly on its insufficiency, I sit down.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: Although I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has been rather hard on this industry, I shall personally, as an hon. Member representing a Sheffield constituency, make it my business to convey his point about the quality of nail scissors to the manufacturers concerned.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend have said, this is characteristically an industry of small firms. In that connection I think that there will be much interest in the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given about the decline in the number of small firms that will be involved as a result of this Order. I wonder if at the same time the hon. Gentleman could say whether there will also be a tendency for the total number of firms in the industry to decline also, or whether it will be only a decline as a result of the drafting of the levy. I certainly hope that such fruits of the research association as will be profitable to the small firms will be available to them even though on turnover grounds they are not participants in the scheme.
  1556
  I wonder also whether there has been any change in the computation of turnover as the basis of the levy or whether the present Order follows the previous one in that regard. I have had no representations made to me personally about the Order, but can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether, in fact, the pressure or the initiative for the change has come mainly from the D.S.I.R. or whether representations have been made about the new form and about the particulars of the Order from the trade, and whether there has been any substantial body of criticism from big or small firms?
  My hon. and learned Friend, as indeed did the Parliamentary Secretary, made some reference to the export performance of this industry. Having regard to its size, I think that it has made quite a contribution, although I am bound to say, whether inside the Common Market or outside it, we must remember that in E.F.T.A. there are countries with substantial cutlery interests as well. I think that the industry is going to have a difficult time.
  I wonder whether in these days, when matters of design, salesmanship and market research are very much scientific matters, the Order will be wide enough if there is a demand within the trade for research on questions of design, packaging and matters of that sort as well as research into methods of production—what one would imagine is scientific research in the rather narrower sense.
  I had a great disappointment recently when I went into one of the largest departmental stores in Paris when it was making for Christmas a particularly large display of imported goods. Even after interviewing the buyer concerned, I found it impossible to find a knife made in Sheffield. The only thing the store could produce from Sheffield was a silver-plated coffee set, although there were knives, flatware and cutlery from almost every country. There were kitchen knives on display but not, I am sorry to say, from Sheffield.
  Particularly because of the intense competition and the small size of many of them, I feel that firms may have to look again at their traditional export performance. I have advocated many times that there should be an attempt

  1557
  to secure co-operative selling organisation among firms which are not in other respects direct competitors, for example people who make scissors and penknives and flatware manufacturers. They might get together to make a bigger selling organisation than an individual firm could produce.
  It is also true that the modernisation and equipment of many firms are not as good and up-to-date as we should like them to be. At the same time, there are firms which have gone to great lengths to bring themselves up to standards both of cleanliness and technical efficiency. This industry suffered for many years from an extremely vicious imposition of Purchase Tax. After representations, silverware and mother of pearl were taken out of special categories. The matter is not so serious today, but knives, forks and spoons are the only essential articles in daily use which have been subject to Purchase Tax throughout the period of Purchase Tax itself. Yet when I was a prisoner-of-war I was given by the Germans a knife, fork and spoon. I did not find much use for anything but the spoon, but even in those primitive conditions these were regarded everywhere as essential articles.
  This is not the only or perhaps the main problem for the trade, but it has been one of its problems in development, in investment and possibly in seeking export markets. The trade, having regard to all the circumstances, has done a good job, though I feel that by co-operation and a more vigorous approach it might be able to do even better in the future. The industry is not only to be judged by the actual figures of its exports. Many of the firms in my constituency make a contribution to the quality of British goods. The fact that the finest cutlery and flatware in the world is made in Sheffield is, because these products are seen in shop windows, a general advertisement for the quality of British workmanship.
  The industry has problems in craftsmanship. The number of skilled craftsmen is declining. The industry has made efforts to carry on the standard but it has not been very much helped by the Board of Trade which recently removed some of the incentives and concessions which were designed to assist in this direction. Not only in the D.S.I.R., but
  1558
  probably in the Board of Trade as well, people ought to look at this industry and see whether they cannot do a little more to help it in connection with Purchase Tax and in promoting exports than, I tend to think, they have done in the past.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: One or two comments have been made from the other side of the House, not so much by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), which need correcting. It is not fair to give the impression that the cutlery industry is asleep because a Working Party came to that conclusion 14 years ago. The impression I receive from the outside—I am not in the industry—is that the leaders of the industry have brought it together chiefly by creating the research council mentioned in the Order, which will have a new name after the debate.
  The point about the industry is that it is getting together. The bigger and more progressive firms are, by and large, helping some of the weaker ones which have not the resources to help themselves. That is apparent from the Measure before us.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, a fair amount of work is being done by the research section in Hoyle Street in connection with mechanisation and with what has been seen in America. It should be remembered that the Sheffield cutlery industry has technical people who have travelled and know what their competitors throughout the world are doing. Many firms are bringing in machinery, from abroad if necessary, and adopting the best methods for producing their goods.
  Reference was made to knife grinding. I have seen machines for the multiple grinding of knives. Much of the manual work is being taken out of the process. That has happened within the last few years, and that development is going ahead. I do not say that the industry should be satisfied. It is not satisfied, and that is one of the reasons for this Order; but progress has been made. There is also magazine loading of machines for making components. It would be wrong—
  Mr. Mitchison: The reference to knife grinding was not mine but George Canning's. He is dead.
  Mr. Osborn: That is fair enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to that. Canning may be dead, but so is the Report of the Working Party, which is 14 years old now. That has been noted, and suitable action has been taken over the intervening years and will continue to be taken after this Order.
  With regard to exports, it would be wrong to minimise the changes in designs which have been considered and adopted by the cutlery industry. In any factory or showroom new designs are now available; admittedly, many of these have been the result of the endeavour of individual firms but others have resulted from joint efforts.
  I have visited several firms recently. The Factories Act is being applied, and many of the less satisfactory conditions are being eliminated. There is progress throughout the industry in working conditions. So it would be wrong to say that the intervening years have been wasted. The cutlery industry is well prepared to enter the competition which it knows it will find when we enter the Common Market.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. D. Price: I will try briefly to answer one or two of the points raised.
  First, with regard to the diarchy, which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) does not like, the plain fact is that this Order and previous ones have come under a 1947 Statute. If the Statute is ever recast, it may be that it would be more convenient to put this under the Minister for Science. That accounts for it, and because of the diarchy hon. Members see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science here tonight.
  There was some exaggeration in the suggestion that the only research done by the industry has been done through this research association. Whereas at one end we have the very small firms, there are also some very substantially larger ones many of which do a certain amount of research. Many are members of B.I.S.R.A.
  Of course, in B.I.S.R.A. there is fundamental research on such things as casting. All these casting firms do co-operative research. It is in the rather narrow field of some of the matters I listed that one finds what in a large organisa-
  1560
  tion one would regard as applied research. It is difficult to draw the distinction between basic research and applied research, but that must be borne in mind. This is not the totality of the research effort.
  It is also inevitable that, where there are many small firms in an industry, if one is to give assistance to them, quite a high percentage of the research association's income will have to be spent on What we call, loosely, "troubleshooting." I do not like the phrase but it is growing up in common parlance. It goes a little deeper than the sort of sales complaint hon. Members have experienced in boots and shoes.
  In the chemical industry in which I used to work we would call it technical service which is in support of sales. If one gets a serious complaint from a customer and looks back at the process of, say, knife grinding, I do not think one can dismiss it as one would in the case of children playing with knives to fight each other then mother complaining that they are too blunt to carve the meat.
  In dealing with the mathematics of the income of the research association, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering did not allow for the smallness of firms which are staying out. Ninety will be below the minimum turnover figure required to have to pay a levy. The proportion of 'turnover remains the same under this Order as under previous Orders.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about imports in relation to exports. He will be delighted to know that imports last year were broadly half of our exports, which is encouraging. It would, I think, be expanding the rules of order too far if I followed the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) into some of his suggestions for exporting. We naturally would like to see any co-operative efforts firms may see fit to adopt on exports. That is true of his industry among others.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked whether the number of smaller firms was declining. There has been a slight decline which has been due to amalgamations rather than to a general reduction in activity.
  Mr. Mitchison: That is not quite the question I asked. I really asked two.

  1561
  Both derived from the Working Party's Report. First, at that time Germany had 50 per cent. of the world export trade and we had 22 per cent. Has that proportion improved? Secondly, has our total export figure gone up? If so, by about how much?
  Mr. Price: I have not the figures with me, but I will be happy to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I was explaining that the number of small firms had been declining mainly due to amalgamations. The Order refers to 90 firms. These have a turnover of between £2,500 and £3,000 a year, and on that basis it might be reasonable and proper to have more amalgamations. But hon. Members from Sheffield know that it is possible, because of horizontal operations in the industry, for people in very small factories which are not much more than rooms really to be able to make a small contribution. To those of us who come from heavy industry, it seems rather peculiar in this modern age, but if they can earn a good living and produce good results—and we see that on their export records—who are we to say that it might be tidier if they did it all in big firms?
  Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the particular question I put to him several times? How far is this industry still engaged in carrying out the recommendations that were made in the Working Party's Report in 1947?
  Mr. Price: Mechanisation is an almost continual process, and it must be inevitable that, so long as there are these very small firms, there must be a limit to how far they can mechanise. With a turnover of £3,000 a year they are not likely to be in a position to mechanise to any great extent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) pointed out, the large firms at the top have a very impressive record of keeping up to date in the type of machinery he referred to.
  We have this structure in the industry between bigger firms which have the resources and the very small firms, which strikes one as pre-Industrial Revolution, almost like a cottage industry. One cannot expect them to mechanise, but they appear to be able to make a living. As long as they are able to
  1562
  make a living, who are we to say that they are carrying on their activities inefficiently?
  Mr. Mitchison: In spite of the Working Party's Report in 1947, I can trace no research association or anything of the kind until the 1960 Order which we are replacing today. Am I right, or was there an earlier one?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraphs shall have effect:
  (1) There shall be a Standing Committee, to be known as the Welsh Grand Committee, to consider such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire as may be referred to them and to consist of all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire, together with not more than twenty-five other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard in such nomination to the approximation of the balance of parties in the Committee to that in the whole House, and shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged:
  (2) A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public Business, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration, and if, on the question thereupon being put, not less than ten Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
  (3) If such a Motion be agreed to, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consider the matter or matters to them referred on not more than four days in a Session, and shall report only that they have considered the said matter or matters.—[Mr. McLaren.]

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to agriculture, it is expedient to authorize—
  A. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) grants towards the cost of constructing, enlarging or adapting buildings for occupation and use by farmers' machinery

  1563
  syndicates and of providing such buildings with such services, means of access and other works as are reasonably required, being grants of an amount not exceeding one-third of that cost (or of a specified amount treated as that cost);

  (2) grants to bodies of persons engaged in organising, promoting or developing co-operation in agriculture or horticulture (including any activities carried on in connection therewith) or co-operation in the marketing of agricultural or horticultural produce;

  (3) grants towards the cost of carrying out approved proposals for promoting the efficient marketing of agricultural or horticultural produce, for carrying out research connected therewith, for making the result of such research available to producers of such produce, or for the formation of bodies carrying on agricultural or horticultural producers' marketing businesses, and contributions to the expenses incurred in connection with the examination of proposals by persons whose support is required as a condition of approval;

  (4) grants in respect of land used for growing crops for the winter feeding of livestock;

  (5) grants in respect of land under grass or similar crops which is renovated by the carrying out of operations thereon;

  (6) compensation for things seized for the purpose of preventing the spread of certain diseases of animals and poultry or of things which could be so seized but are destroyed, buried or disposed of without being seized;

  (7) any expenses incurred in making arrangements for making vaccine against fowl pest available at prices designed to encourage its use;

  (8) any sums necessary to enable any Minister of the Crown to make payments to persons who are displaced from land used by them for the purposes of agriculture, being land which is so used by way of a trade or business; and

  (9) any expenses of administration incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the said Act of this Session.

  B. Any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any enactment attributable to any provision of the said Act of this Session—

  (1) increasing to thirty million pounds the maximum amount that may be paid in the aggregate by way of grants under section 1 of the Hill Farming Act 1946;

  1564

  (2) adding four years to the periods by reference to which or days in which the making of subsidy payments is authorised by section 13 of the said Act of 1946;

  (3) increasing to ninety million pounds the maximum amount that may be paid in the aggregate by way of grants under Part II of the Agriculture Act 1957; and

  (4) extending contributions under the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act 1952 to fertilisers used by growers of mushrooms, and to fertilisers applied to the crop instead of to the soil.

  C. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums which may be or are to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or raised by borrowing under the Sugar Act 1956.
  D. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
  E. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable into the Exchequer under any other enactment.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [21st November]

    AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to agriculture it is expedient to authorise any increase—

    (a) in the rate of any surcharge payable to the Sugar Board by virtue of section 7 of the Sugar Act 1956; or

    (b) in the amount of any distribution repayment so payable by virtue of section 15 of the said Act of 1956;

    which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of this Session requiring the Sugar Board to purchase sugar to be used as an ingredient of goods to be exported from the Republic of Ireland.
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

  ROYAL PARKS
  10.58 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]
  Mr. Nigel Birch: I am moved to speak tonight by some remarks passed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport at the opening of the Hyde Park Corner underpass on 17th October last. He then made it clear that he was planning further encroachments on the Royal Parks.
  Perhaps for a moment I might set forth the history of the Park Lane improvement scheme, part of which was this underpass. The scheme includes the work done at Marble Arch, the removal from the Park of the East Carriage Road, the murder of Hamilton Gardens and the work at Hyde Park Corner, including the underpass, and the cutting off at the ends both of Green Park and Buckingham Palace Gardens and also the removal of 50 great trees and 100 smaller ones.
  This work has been in contemplation for a long time, and the plan came up when I was Minister of Works in 1955. I was opposed to the scheme for the following reasons. The Royal Parks are the principal glory of London. There is nothing to compare with them in any capital city in the world which I have visited. Ever since the original Royal gifts, the Royal Parks have been jealously guarded and preserved. It is not true to say that there have been no encroachments whatever, but such encroachments as there have been before this scheme have been very small.
  Under the so-called Park Lane improvement scheme, 21½ acres of land was removed from Hyde Park and Green Park. This was three times as great as all the previous encroachments put together I felt that this was a change, not in degree, but in kind. It meant the breach of a principle, and if this House was willing to give up such a large slice of the Royal Parks, it would be very difficult in future to object in principle to further encroachments and, also, claims for further encroachments would certainly he made for that very reason.
  Those were the principal arguments which I put, but I also put to my colleagues
  1566
  this point. The traffic problem in London is highly intractable. The real difficulty is that we are trying to get a quart and a half into a pint pot, and taking a slice off the Royal Parks is not likely to make any drastic difference to that problem. Furthermore, why start on the Royal Parks anyway? Those were the arguments which I put to my colleagues. While I was Minister of Works, I remained master of the field, and so did my immediate successor, now Lord Hailes.
  Afterwards, Lord Hailes' successor gave way and the Park Lane Improvement Bill was brought in early in 1958. By that time, I had resigned from the Treasury and I spoke during the passage of the Bill in Parliament. I rehearsed in my speech the arguments which I have already given, but I made one further point about the traffic. I said that the scheme would result in transferring the bottleneck at Hyde Park Corner to Piccadilly and Knightsbridge.
  That brings me to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 17th October. In that speech, he said "I have been considering the future." Then, he echoed exactly the words I had said. He said, "We have transferred the bottleneck from Hyde Park Corner to Piccadilly and Knightsbridge", which shows, I suppose, as some backhanded consolation, that it is sometimes possible by the help of unaided reason to reach a conclusion reached only a few years later by the experts.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister continued his speech. He said that he had a plan. Nobody wins any marks for guessing what it was: the dimmest child at a special school would have guessed it years ago. The plan was to take another slice off the Royal Parks. What the child might not have anticipated, as, indeed, many other people might not have done, was that my right hon. Friend referred to his plan as "very juicy".
  What does the Minister's plan mean? His main plan was to use South Carriage Road, in Hyde Park. That would mean that the buses would roar past the best flower beds and shrub borders in the Park, deposit their bouquet of scent upon the horses and riders in the Row and then go on. It hon. Members will

  1567
  think of the topography of the Park, they will see that obviously the scheme could not stop at Hyde Park, because the South Carriage Road ends at a T-junction with the West Carriage Road, which carries on over the Serpentine bridge. This scheme would make no sense whatever unless a substantial slice was taken off the south end of Kensington Gardens. That, I strongly suspect, is what the plan actually is, to drive a road past the long Flower Walk in Kensington Gardens which has given such deep pleasure to many and gives pleasure to me to this day.
  Burt why stop there? If the East Carriage Drive is taken out, there is no reason why the South Carriage Drive should not be taken out. And what about the North Carriage Drive? There is a lot of traffic north of the Park and the aesthetic reasons for preserving the South Carriage Drive are far greater than for preserving the North Carriage Drive. I have little doubt that if the Minister of Transport gets his way, and manages to get hold of the South Carriage Drive, it will be logically put to him, and he will accept it, that the North Carriage Drive should also be taken away.
  What will happen then? There will be another ceremony, I do not know whether by this Government or a Labour Government. A Labour Government welcomed the butchery of the Park before. They were delighted about it and so were the London County Council. One Government or another will do it and I think that a Labour Government would be more likely to do it than a Conservative Government.
  What speech will the Minister of Transport, whoever he may be, make at the opening of the new scheme when both the North and South Carriage Drives are taken out of the Park? I do not think that anyone deserves any prize for guessing what the speech will be. It is simple. He will say, "I am concerned about the future … I am advised that this great scheme will result in a total blockage by day and by night of both ends of Church Street"—as indeed it would. He will say, "My plan is juicier yet. What we need are up-and-down roads within the Park, and there they are, the East Carriage Drive going over the Serpentine and the Broad
  1568
  Walk to Kensington Gardens. I have a nasty feeling that some such horrid proposal may be forthcoming.
  Is there any way of stopping this at all? I am not very optimistic. The manner may be improved a little. When Victor Emanuel despoiled the Pope of his temporal estates in Italy he told the Pope that he did it
  "…with the affection of a son, the faith of a Catholic and the honour of a king."
  If he had said that it was a juicy plan anyway, the unification of Italy might have been attended by graver difficulties than it was. If the people are once again to be despoiled, I hope it will be done with a little more grace.
  But whether people will rise in their wrath or not, I do not know. I was disappointed that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport aroused so little opposition or interest. There was a ladylike article opposing him in The Times and there was an equally ladylike article opposing the Park Lane scheme, and then The Times backed down. Maudie Little-hampton made an acid comment, as she so often does, but nothing very much else happened.
  I hope that the people who do care about the Parks will rally round. I, if I am spared, and such a scheme comes before Parliament, shall certainly oppose it with such strength as God may give me. I may be spitting in the wind, but at least I shall spit.
  11.14 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) for raising this subject on the Adjournment tonight. As one who has lived almost the whole of his life within walking distance of one or other of the Royal Parks, I entirely agree with him that these parks are something that we as Londoners anyway, and those who have responsibility for them, should cherish and defend against all corners. I agree with him, too, that it is very easy to think of using the Royal Parks to get us out of our difficulties when London is so very heavily built up and it is difficult to take room in any other direction.

  1569
  We are very fortunate that every proposal to try to pinch a piece of the Royal Parks produces its own reaction and that there are plenty of those, both inside and outside the House, who love the parks and are ready, like my right hon. Friend, to defend them against any encroachment whenever that is threatened. It is true also that successive Commissioners and Ministers of Works, including my right hon. Friend when he held that position, have themselves defended the Royal Parks against encroachment.
  It is not only from Government Departments that the parks have had to be defended in the past. I think I am right in saying that Queen Caroline at one time wanted to enclose Kensington Gardens and she asked her Prime Minister what would be the cost of the operation. His reply to her was that it would cost a Crown. We can see opposite Knightsbridge Barracks in Hyde Park the barren waste that there is where a part of the park was taken for the 1851 Exhibition.
  There are two safeguards. First, any alienation of the parks would and does require legislation, so it cannot be done by the back door, as it were. Secondly—I give this assurance to my right hon. Friend—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works accepts without question the policy of his predecessors, including that of my right hon. Friend himself, that there should he no violation of the Royal Parks, unless it is shown to be essential in the public interest and that the lost amenity in comparison with the benefit gained is small.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the traffic problems. I am sure he will not expect me this evening to go into the details or discuss the traffic arrangements outside the Royal Parks. It is not surprising that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has cast his eye on the Royal Parks as a part of the solution to London's traffic problems. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Transport is by any means the first Minister of Transport who has looked in this direction for a solution. It is a fact that we must face that the boundaries of the Royal Parks are close to highways which have very heavy traffic. The North Carriage Drive is close to Bayswater Road. The
  1570
  South Carriage Drive is alongside Knightsbridge, where the traffic is very heavy indeed. The Green Park is alongside Piccadilly. If it is necessary to increase the traffic flow on these roads by widening or introducing one-way systems, it is perfectly natural for the traffic experts, who look at the problem from the point of view of traffic, to look at the park roads and the park boundaries as a part of their examination of the problem.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport referred in his speech at the opening of the underpass to the possibility of using the South Carriage Drive. It is a fact, too, that the South Carriage Drive has in the past been used for commercial traffic during emergencies in order to make Knightsbridge into a one-way route. None the less, the Minister of Transport has made it clear that in any proposal of this kind he has a duty to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works before putting forward any firm proposal of this kind, and I can tell the House that the first reaction of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to this suggestion is that the use of the South Carriage Drive could be seriously detrimental to the amenities of the park. I hope that my right hon. Friend wild accept that assurance.
  One of the difficulties that face the Minister of Transport in London is to find space for off-street parking, and it is natural that my right hon. Friend should look at the open spaces of the Royal Parks. On the other hand, what we in the Ministry of Public Building and Works want to do is to get rid of the cars that are now parked on the roads of the park, and which undoubtedly spoil both the look and the general amenity of the parks themselves.
  The Hyde Park underground garage will provide some solution to this problem. It provides space for the parking of 1,000 cars, and I think that my right hon. Friend wild agree that when the ground on tap of the car park has been restored, and the grass has grown again, the park itself will be seen to have been very little affected. As the underground parks come into use, it is our policy to

  1571
  do away with the surface parking. With the opening of the Hyde Park underground park, we have done away with the parking of some 200 cars on the North Carriage Drive, and if and when other underground car parks are opened we hope eventually to eliminate all the surface parking of cars in the Royal Parks except for the spaces one can keep for people who come into the parks in their cars to enjoy the amenities. What we have to do is to do away with the commuter parkers, except in the under-
  1572
  ground car parks as they come into being.
  I think that my right hon. Friend has done a service to the House and to London in general by raising this question, and I hope that he will accept my assurance that my right hon. Friend the present Minister will be no less zealous to defend the Royal Parks than his predecessors.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  African Community
  African Community
  Constitution
  Constitution
EDUCATION
  Minor Works
  Minor Works
  Boarding Places
  Boarding Places
  School Transport
  School Transport
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Reorganisation (Wales)
  Reorganisation (Wales)
  Shops and Licensed Premises
  Shops and Licensed Premises
  New Towns
  New Towns
HOUSING
  Aluminium Bungalows (Glamorgan)
  Aluminium Bungalows (Glamorgan)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
TRANSPORT
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Port Glasgow Industrial Estate
  Port Glasgow Industrial Estate
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Universities (Salaries)
  Universities (Salaries)
  Whisky
  Whisky
  TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
  TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Approved School Places
  Approved School Places
  Immigrants (Deportation)
  Immigrants (Deportation)
  Crimes of Violence (Betting Shops)
  Crimes of Violence (Betting Shops)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Young Persons (Prison Remand)
  Young Persons (Prison Remand)
  Children and Young Persons
  Children and Young Persons
  Ashford Remand Centre
  Ashford Remand Centre
EMPLOYMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Overseas Students (Introduction Courses)
  Overseas Students (Introduction Courses)
  Technical Teachers
  Technical Teachers
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  South African Immigrants
  South African Immigrants
SWAZILAND AND SOUTH AFRICA
  Exchange of Land
  Exchange of Land
SWAZILAND
  Rail Construction Works
  Rail Construction Works
  Constitution
  Constitution
ADEN
  Prison
  Prison
  Prison Regulations
  Prison Regulations
BASUTOLAND
  South African Police
  South African Police
  CHINA
  CHINA
  LAOS (ASSISTANCE)
  LAOS (ASSISTANCE)
  THAILAND (STORMS)
  THAILAND (STORMS)
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Roads (Snow)
  Roads (Snow)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell

PESTICIDES AND FOOD
3.5 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what inquiries have been made to ascertain the extent to which foodstuffs are contaminated with (a) DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, (b) organophosphorous pesticides, and (c) other types of pesticide; and what is the result of such investigation.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, in accordance with the recommendation of the Research Study Group on the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture, surveys are being undertaken to determine chlorinated hydrocarbon, including DDT, residues in home-produced and imported mutton, in home-produced milk, and in both home-produced and imported butter; also to determine residues of certain organophosphorus compounds in imported apples and imported wheat, and lead arsenate in imported apples. None of these more recent investigations has yet reached a stage where results are available.
In addition, surveys to determine chlorinated hydrocarbon residues in home-produced potatoes and carrots, and certain organophosphorus compound residues in home-produced lettuce and brassicæ, have been planned and will commence next year. Surveys have been made to determine residues of demeton methyl, an organophosphorus compound, on brassicæ; of arsenic in
974
potatoes; of mercury in tomatoes; and of lead and arsenic in apples. The results of these surveys showed that there was no hazard to consumers of the crops sampled.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the last part of his reply is intended to cover all the substances which he has mentioned?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it is intended to cover all the substances which I mentioned in the last part of my reply.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the noble Lord's Answer was not as clear as it might have been. Does it not show that we are very belated in attempting to deal with this extremely urgent problem, one which is fraught with very great dangers for the health of human beings? And when will the result of these investigations be published?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The only results so far obtained arc reassuring, and the Government know nothing to give cause to fear that food in this country is contaminated with toxic pesticide chemicals to a degree which is dangerous to human health.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, what is the noble Lord's evidence for saying that there was no hazard? The only claim the Minister has is that there is no evidence of hazard. Until we have lived another twenty years, we probably shall not know how far we have been poisoned.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Ministry's scientists are satisfied (I can only repeat my words) that there was no hazard to consumers of the crops sampled.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the Minister completely satisfied about the antibiotics given to animals?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I shall look forward to a Question on that matter from the noble Lady.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how it

975
can be that he and his advisers are satisfied about this matter, when they do not yet know the extent to which food is contaminated?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sorry that my Answer, which I read as slowly as I could, does not satisfy the noble Lord. I thought that it would satisfy him on that very question. I would ask him to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and I hope that he will then be reassured. If he is still not reassured, perhaps we can have a talk about it, but I hope that he will be.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, if the noble Lord has this information, will he make it public?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the positive information I have in my possession I have already given to the noble Lord.

M.1 REPAIRS
3.11 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why it is necessary for two lanes of the south-bound carriageway of the M.l to be closed for distances of up to three miles when repairs are being made only to the slow lane and when these repairs have not even been commenced for much of the distance.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the signposting of obstructions on motorways is carried out in accordance with the "Traffic Safety Code for Roadworks and Emergencies on motorways" which was drawn up after consultation with representative organisations to ensure that uniform and consistent methods are applied on all motorways. To allow the safe passage of contractors' men and vehicles, both the middle and slow lanes
976
of a three-lane highway must be closed while any work is in progress on the slow lane. The middle lane is opened to traffic when work is suspended at night and at weekends.
Surface-laying machinery proceeds faster than the removal of defective carriageway material, and to complete the surface laying in one smooth operation it is necessary first to remove all the surface material in each length. While it might appear that no work is being done after removal of the material, this method achieves the best results in the shortest time. Where two lengths of lane under repair are separated by a short distance it would present traffic with an additional hazard if the intervening length were left open.
Subject to the weather, we hope to complete this season's work on the slow lane within two weeks.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but I should like to ask him whether, if this happens again, the repairs could not be so phased that there would be sufficiently large distances between the various parts being repaired to make it worth while to allow at any rate the middle lane to be used for traffic. I should also like to ask whether, if the same thing occurs on a two-lane motorway, the whole motorway will have to be closed while these repairs are being done.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the authorities who are our agents try to phase the repairs so as to present the minimum inconvenience and delay to traffic. It is not always possible to split them up as widely as one would perhaps like, because the whole art of putting on a good surface, as I have said, is that the surface-laying machine shall get the longest possible run in one go to make it as smooth and as free from joins as possible. Naturally the problem involved with a two-lane motorway is a different one, and in certain circumstances it might be necessary to close one side of it, according to the repairs to be carried out. It might be possible in others to make different arrangements.

REMEMBRANCE DAY
3.12 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the present system of having a "movable" Remembrance Day is preferable to having it fixed on 11th November (as pre-war) or on some other suitable day, such as VE-Day.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the date of Remembrance Day was very carefully considered by the then Government in 1945 and 1946, in consultation with representatives of the Churches and the British Legion and with Commonwealth Governments. Many possibilities, including those suggested by my noble friend, were considered. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, announced on 19th June, 1946, that His Late Majesty had approved a recommendation that Remembrance Sunday should be celebrated on the Sunday before 11th November, unless the 11th or 12th November were a Sunday. In 1956, my noble friend Lord Avon announced an alteration to the rule by which Remembrance Sunday would always be observed in future on the second Sunday in November. Her Majesty's Government are not persuaded that it would be right to make any further alteration now.
THE Duke OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION
3.13p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state their intentions regarding the future of the system of preventive detention.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, last year the then Home Secretary asked the
978
Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders to review the working of the preventive detention system established by the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. The Council appointed a sub-committee for this purpose, under the chairmanship of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter. The sub-committee has recently finished its work and its report is to be considered at a meeting of the Advisory Council next month. I am sure the noble Lords will agree that until the views of the full Council are known and have been considered by my right honourable friend it would be premature for the Government to make a statement.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that very encouraging reply, and agreeing with the sentiments he has expressed, may I ask whether he is aware that long sentences for persistent petty thefts are still continuing—for example, fourteen years for the theft of an overcoat, of which a man will serve eleven years eight months, compared with the twelve years a man will serve for selling his country? Would the noble Earl not agree, now that the report is to be received, that the Government should make a statement as soon as possible thereafter?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree that a statement should be made as soon as possible, but only after this serious matter has been fully considered by the full Council and by my right honourable friend.

THE COMMON MARKET
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the Common Market at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in introducing this Bill to the House, and in asking your Lordships to give it a Second Reading, I feel that it will be as well if I warn your Lordships in advance,

979
and apologise at the same time, that my speech will be somewhat lengthy,. I fear that I must detain your Lordships for some 35 minutes, as the Bill is a very long one and it is also complicated. Furthermore, it is an important Bill, and in some of its details, though not, I think, in its general policy, it may prove to be controversial. If one were to require testimony to the truth of this one need refer only to the list of speakers, numbering 22. Even so, I am afraid I shall have to leave out a number of matters of interest to some of your Lordships, and I can only say that, if I do, it will not be because the Government believe these matters are not important. I think, however, that my noble friend who will be winding up at the end of the debate will refer to some of these matters which I shall inevitably have to omit.
This Bill establishes the new organisation for comprehensive management of our water resources which, by general consent, is badly needed. It brings together several separate strands of legislation which have occupied your Lordships over the years. These have dealt with particular aspects of water. Our object now, as I have said, is comprehensive management, for the benefit of all the many interests which depend on water in various ways.
We have had several Acts of Parliament on public water supply, the most important being the Water Act of 1945, which made the Minister of Housing and Local Government responsible for a national policy relating to water. The Act also equipped water undertakers with the powers necessary for their work and provided for their re-grouping into stronger units. There have been Acts dealing with land drainage and coast protection, culminating in the Land Drainage Act of last year. These have provided all the necessary powers for the drainage of land and the prevention of flooding from rivers and the sea. There has been a series of Acts on the prevention of river pollution, based on valuable work done by subcommittees of the Central Advisory Water Committee. These have gradually provided means of controlling all discharges of trade effluent and sewage into rivers and estuaries.
980
There has not been in recent years major legislation about freshwater fisheries, but the Prevention of Pollution Acts and the River Boards Act which I shall mention in a moment have both, in diverse ways, brought advantage to fisheries. Noble Lords will also know that a major investigation of the situation in relation to Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries was carried out by a Committee under the chairmanship of The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, whose Report is now under consideration.
A substantial step towards comprehensive management was taken by the River Boards Act, 1948, which made river boards responsible for land drainage, prevention of river pollution and administration of fisheries, functions which had previously been discharged by a variety of bodies. The Bill now before the House provides for the dissolution of river boards, or rather for their transformation. Their passing, though we believe it to be necessary, will occasion widespread regret. In the dozen years since they were set up they have made good progress towards better protection against floods, cleaner rivers, and better fishing for the growing numbers who enjoy it. But many who serve on river boards, or who are concerned in some other way with water resources, agree that the present legislative framework is incomplete.
The Water Act, 1945, gave the Minister of Housing the duty of promoting the conservation and proper use of water resources, but, apart from enabling him to control abstraction of underground water in certain areas, it gave him little in the way of powers to discharge the duty. River boards, and many others, are vitally concerned with the level of water in rivers, but neither river boards nor any other public authority have comprehensive powers to control abstraction from rivers. As far as rivers are concerned, it is left at present to the individual user of water to exploit water resources for his own purposes where he can—subject, in the case of statutory water undertakers, to their obtaining the necessary powers from Parliament or from the Minister. But the organisation for positive measures on a comprehensive scale is lacking.
In seeking to remedy the deficiencies brought to light by the growing demand for water, we have been largely guided

981
by the Proudman Report, the Report of the Sub-Committee on the Growing Demand for Water, appointed by the Central Advisory Water Committee. The Government's attitude to the Report was explained in the White Paper on Water Conservation, which was published in April, and debated in your Lordships' House in May. I should like again to express the Government's warm thanks to Professor Proudman, and to his colleagues, who included the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury. I am delighted that both he and the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, a member of the Central Advisory Water Committee, are taking part in our debate this afternoon.
The new organisation which Her Majesty's Government propose comprises 26 river authorities together with the Thames Conservancy and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board and the Water Resources Board. Each river authority will be responsible for all aspects of the management of the water resources of one or more river basins. The Water Resources Board will be concerned only with water conservation. In the debate on the White Paper there were two main criticisms of this organisation. One concerned the number of river authorities to be established, and the other the part to be played by the Water Resources Board.
The Proudman Report envisaged that the areas of the new river authorities should be based on those of the river boards, but with some amalgamations. The White Paper proposed seven amalgamations of river board areas. Several noble Lords suggested in the debate that this would still leave too many authorities. In the Bill there are, in fact, only six amalgamations, and one modification amongst these six concerning Cumberland and Lancashire. In considering how many river authorities there should be it is necessary to bear in mind that the authorities, in addition to the new work of water conservation for which the Bill provides, will also be responsible for land drainage and flood prevention, control of pollution and administration of fisheries, the functions of river boards now. In this speech I am bound to concentrate on what is new, but these other functions are, and will continue to be, extremely important, and we must take care that their
982
efficient discharge is not prevented by the new form of organisation set up for water conservation. The Bill, in fact, proposes 26 river authorities outside the Thames and Lee catchments. There is, however, power in the Bill—and I would emphasise this to your Lordships—to adjust the areas subsequently if experience shows this to be right.
The criticism of the Water Resources Board—which at the time of the White Paper debate was known as the separate central authority—was that it would not be strong enough. Let us consider in the light of this criticism the various functions which the Board will have under the Bill. First there is the intelligence function; to build up comprehensive information about the water resources of the country, the possibilities of augmenting them, and the demands being made upon them and likely to be made in the future. For this purpose the Board will control the work to be done by river authorities in the measurement of water resources, both surface water in rivers and lakes and underground water.
The Board will have complete powers to require river authorities to furnish it with information which they will obtain in the course of their duties. Second, the Board has the clear duty under Clause 12 to work out, on the basis of the intelligence thus obtained, the action which is needed to augment water resources; to make its recommendations known to the river authorities, and to encourage and assist them in carrying out the recommendations; to check on progress made and to draw attention to deficiencies and delays. This is not a paper exercise. The Bill makes it a duty for the river authorities both to formulate schemes and to carry out schemes implementing the recommendations of the Board. Third, the Board has a research function. It will make known to existing research agents, such as the D.S.I.R. establishments, the questions to which they need answers; it will organise the necessary field work through the river authorities, and it can contribute to the cost of such work which they are called upon to do in excess of their normal duties. The Board can itself carry out research if for a particular project it seems to be the most appropriate agency.

983
My Lords, this, surely, is a body with real strength, and one with the duty of taking the initiative. Though the Board has general powers to give advice, there is no question of its simply waiting until its advice is asked for. The choice of a Chairman and of members will be of vital importance. There must be brought together upon it persons with the experience and skills which are requisite to the taking of the important decisions involved in both formulating and securing the execution of an integrated plan on a national scale. More importance attaches to securing people with those abilities than to providing direct representation of one or other of the interests concerned with water. The Board will have its own staff, including engineers and hydrologists. It will be able to help river authorities by lending staff to them for special projects.
What the Board cannot do, except in the very special case where a river authority has been found to be in default, is itself to build reservoirs and other water conservation works. To give the Board such a power would not be consistent with our conception of the river authority. The river authority is to be responsible for all aspects of water conservation in its area. This includes the execution of works which cannot conveniently be carried out by an individual abstractor of water such as a statutory water undertaker. Conservation projects by river authorities will require the approval of the Minister of Housing. He will not approve any major project without satisfying himself that it accords with the Water Resources Board's ideas. If the Board cannot persuade a river authority to take action which it believes necessary, the Minister has his powers of direction, and he will use them if need be.
The Board has a key rÔle in planning the development of water resources. I cannot promise that there will be no more controversial water schemes like those which we discussed on the Manchester Corporation Bill. But once this Bill is operative there will be a Board able to review alternative ways of meeting a particular need for water and to reach an informed judgment on the practical merits of any particular scheme. The Board, and the river
984
authorities and Ministers with functions under the Bill, are all under the express duty, set out in Clause 93, of taking into account the effect of their proposals upon natural beauty and on other facets of what is known as amenity.
My Lords, I now turn to the Bill itself. It is a Bill of somewhat daunting magnitude. But, in setting up river authorities, we must equip them with powers adequate for their many-sided role, and we must provide safeguards for the diverse interests affected by their work. The Bill repeals the River Boards Act, 1948, and re-enacts much of it with modifications. To have left the 1948 Act on the Statute Book would have meant a somewhat shorter Bill, but it would have been really a monstrosity of legislation by reference.
Part I of the Bill enlarges the responsibilities of the Minister of Housing under existing legislation so as to include responsibility for, broadly, the management of water resources for which the Bill provides the machinery. The Minister of Agriculture is to be responsible for the land drainage and fisheries activities of river authorities, as he is at present for the corresponding activities of river boards. Part II provides for the establishment of the river authorities, and prescribes their functions in broad terms. Clause 4 supplemented by Clause 14, makes it clear that river authorities have a positive duty to estimate future demands for water, to formulate and secure the execution of proposals for "conserving, re-distributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in their area", to meet such demands. The river authorities are to be established by orders, made jointly by my two right honourable friends.
All the authorities come into existence on the same day, referred to in the Bill as "the first appointed day". They will assume their functions a little later, on the second appointed day. We hope that they will be established and in action by early 1965. The size and composition of the authorities will be prescribed in the orders, and will vary from authority to authority, according to local circumstances, within limits laid down in Clauses 6–8. The authorities will normally range in size from 21 to 31 members, but additional members are to be appointed in the cases dealt with in

985
Clause 8, and the normal maximum of 31 can be exceeded in other cases if special circumstances make this necessary.
The members of each authority will be appointed partly by local authorities in the area concerned and partly by the two Ministers. The members appointed by local authorities are to have a bare majority. The members to be appointed by Ministers are to be chosen for their knowledge of land drainage, fisheries, or agriculture—these to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture; or public water supply or industry—these to be appointed by the Minister of Housing. All authorities will include one or more members chosen for knowledge of each of these five fields, but the proportions will vary according to the circumstances of the area.
So far the provisions of the Bill about the composition of the river authorities have followed the White Paper. But there is a significant change as regards the appointment of members by local authorities. The White Paper proposed appointment by county boroughs and county districts. In our debate last May, the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, said he thought it would be better if in counties the appointments were made by the county council. The same view was expressed in many other quarters and the Government have decided to accept it. I should like to take this opportunity of explaining why. Our object must be to get people conversant with the problems facing the new authorities. The county councils and county borough councils have for some years been closely concerned with the work done by river boards and it would be unwise to lose this accumulated experience.
In addition, they are the local planning authorities and will be intimately concerned with other aspects of the developments that cause this rising demand for water. In some areas, too, closer examination has shown that the practical difficulties surrounding the arrangements for appointing members from rating authorities, and at the same time ensuring an adequate voice for the rural areas, are too formidable. Unnecessary complications would have arisen in the apportionment of precepts. My right honourable friends have concluded that
986
retention of appointment by the counties and county boroughs will be in the best interests of the new authorities. Nevertheless, there will still be some cases where the relative size of the contribution to the river authority's income made by an individual district council will justify the direct nomination of a member by that Council, and provision for this is contained in Clause 7.
Part II of the Bill also deals with the constitution of the Water Resources Board. It is to comprise not more than seven members, Who will be appointed by the Minister of Housing and some or all of whom may be paid and who may serve full or part-time. The Board is to make an annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament.
Part III deals first with the measurement of water resources. River authorities are required to carry out, and periodically to bring up to date, a survey of water resources and the demands upon them: in other words a "water-use balance sheet". This is the essential preliminary to their basic task of developing water resources in anticipation of future demands. The authorities are also required to submit hydrometric schemes for the approval of the Water Resources Board, and to carry them out when approved. These schemes will provide for the measurement of rainfall, evaporation, and the flow of rivers and streams. Works of this sort will continue to qualify for Exchequer grant which will now be paid under Clause 81.
Part III also places on the river authority the duty of determining for the more important rivers of the area, and with due regard for the character of each river, the minimum flow needed to meet the requirements of all the various uses to which the river is being put at the -present time, including fishing, land drainage, navigation, the dilution of sewage effluents, and water supply. The authority's proposals will be prepared in consultation with the statutory interest affected. They will then be advertised, so that all these affected may have a chance to consider them and make representations, after which the proposals will be submitted for approval to the Minister of Housing, who will be required to hear the objections. The minimum acceptable flow determined in this way will guide the river authority in considering

987
whether to allow further abstraction of water from the river and whether to take steps to increase the quantity of water available.
Part IV of the Bill provides the means by which the proper use of water resources will be secured and the investment in water conservation works safe-guarded. It provides for the control of the abstraction and impounding of water. The basis of the control appearing in Clauses 23 and 36 is that it will become unlawful to abstract or to begin impounding otherwise than in conformity with a licence under the Bill.
The extent of this control may best be outlined by taking surface water and ground water separately. For surface water statutory control has hitherto applied primarily to the taking of water by statutory water undertakers and by the Central Electricity Generating Board, who require large quantities daily for cooling purposes. For the rest, any constraint has derived from the Common Law. Now a more precise and readily applied control is essential, but certain abstractions of surface water will, under Clause 24 of the Bill, be exempted from the need for a licence. Among these is, first, the taking of surface water by a riparian occupier for the domestic purposes of his household or for agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation, on the riparian holding. These abstractions for present purposes are not substantial. Rights to make abstractions of this sort will continue to be based upon the Common Law. Next, the taking of water into canals will be exempted.
As to the abstraction of water from below ground, this is already subject to licensing under the Water Act, 1945, in many parts of England and Wales—the areas which the Minister of Housing and Local Government has defined as "conservation areas". Here the main significance of the present Bill is that it transfers the licensing responsibility from the Minister to the river authorities, and extends the control to the whole of England and Wales, as the Proudman Committee recommended. The control will continue to embrace the construction of wells and boreholes and the installation of machinery, as well as the taking of the water; but again there will be certain exemptions. The taking of water by the occupier of land for the domestic
988
purposes of his household and, secondly, the taking of water where it is necessary to prevent interference with underground workings would require no licence. Extended exemption will be given to the making of boreholes to test the presence of underground water, its quality, or the effect of abstracting it upon other underground water.
For both surface and underground water there is a common-sense exemption from licensing of water taken for fire fighting; and there is a de minimis exemption for the taking of less than 1,000 gallons. The impounding of water must be controlled, essentially because of the interference caused to the natural flow of streams upon which many interests depend. The licensing system replaces Section 26 of the Water Act, 1945, where the water undertaker is concerned; and goes beyond it in bringing impounding by others under statutory control.
I come now to the way in which existing rights of abstraction and impounding are treated. Abstractions which are being made with statutory authority at the time the new system comes into operation, as for example, the taking of water by statutory water undertakers for the public supply, will receive a licence of the same effect as the statutory authorisation, to be known as a "licence of right" under Clause 33. Similarly, a person who has abstracted water without statutory authority at any time in the five years preceding the new system is entitled to receive a "licence of right". The terms of the licence in this case, and in the case of the abstraction governed by a statutory authority which sets no limit to the amount which may be taken, are to be settled by reference to a number of factors laid down in Clauses 34 and 35 of the Bill, the general effect of which is to limit the licence to abstraction of the amounts, and in the manner of past abstractions.
All applications for licences other than licences of right are required to be advertised locally: representations may be made, and the river authority must consider these before taking a decision (Clauses 28 and 29). There is a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for an applicant who is disappointed by the decision of the river

989
authority, or by its failure to decide (Clauses 39 and 40). A licence may be varied or revoked: and if this is proposed to be done against the wish of the licence holder, the decision will not be taken by the river authority but will be a ministerial decision. The licence holder also will have a claim for compensation for injury sustained (Clauses 41 to 48).
In the White Paper the Government accepted the point of view that conservation of water should be self-supporting, the cost being carried by means of licence fees and charges for water, except that, pending the making and approval of a charging scheme, any deficiency of water conservation account should be met by precept. Parts V and VIII of the Bill give effect to this. It will have been noted that Clause 56 in particular gives scope for that flexibility in charging schemes to which the White Paper referred, enabling rates of charge to vary in accordance with the source of the abstraction, the season at which it is made, the use to which the water is put, and whether it returns to the same source of supply, virtually undiminished in quantity, or not. These charging schemes will be submitted to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for approval: and there will be public advertisement and hearing of objections before that approval is given.
In the interim period before these schemes become operative, which it is hoped, as Clause 57 (3) shows, will be in 1969, new abstractions will be liable to charge settled ad hoc between the abstracter and the river authority; but those who were abstracting previously and hold licences of right will pay no charge until the formal schemes are approved. Clause 58 provides a further measure of flexibility in charging arrangements and reflects the statement in the White Paper that where an abstracter has himself carried out conservation works there will be a case for a lower rate of charge, or perhaps for no charge at all.
Part VIII of the Bill requires the keeping by river authorities of a separate water resources account, for transactions arising from their new functions. No change is made in the methods of financing the functions transferred from river boards, apart from provision relat-
990
ing to the penny rate product which is used as the basis of the precept. Your Lordships will not wish me at this juncture to dilate upon the arithmetical intricacies of this: but I may say that the effect of what is done will be to secure greater fairness all round.
The powers which the Bill confers on river authorities to acquire land and to carry out works are such as river boards and statutory water undertakers already possess. The powers of entry and inspection, the power to take samples of effluents and the power to require information, though apparently extensive, are such as the river boards already possess, and are the minimum requisite to enable the new authorities to discharge their tasks, which range from land drainage and fishery administration through prevention of pollution to the control of abstraction of water, the gauging of streams and the carrying out of works to store and move water.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he can say whether I am right in thinking that land can be acquired only by agreement; however necessary it may be, there are no compulsory powers in the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: Offhand, I think the noble Lord is wrong, but I will make sure that my noble friend confirms that or otherwise at the end of the debate. I think there are compulsory powers and land is not necessarily acquired by agreement.
LORD SILKIN: Offhand, I think I am right.
LORD HASTINGS: We shall see, I hope, at the end of the debate.
The transfer of the undertakings of the river boards to the river authorities, and the dissolution of the river boards effected under Part IX of the Bill involves a substantial number of persons who are the officers and other employees of the river boards. The House may rest assured that the provision made for the safeguarding of the interests of the staff or river boards is in line with the practice in local government generally. Pension rights are fully safeguarded, and the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Agriculture jointly are put under an obligation to make regulations requiring the payment of

991
compensation to persons who suffer loss of employment or diminution of emoluments, as a consequence of the transfer of the river boards' functions.
Special arrangements need to be made for securing the discharge of the functions of a river authority in an appropriate way in those parts of the country to which the River Boards Act, 1948, did not apply; that is, the Thames catchment, above Teddington, and the Lee catchment, together with that part of the County of London not in the Lee catchment and certain adjoining areas. The Bill contains in Clause 112 power for the Ministers of Housing, Agriculture and Transport jointly to apply the provisions of the Bill with suitable adaptation to these areas, alterations in the constitution and powers of the Thames Conservancy and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board as may be necessary and expedient.
The general purpose of the Bill is to secure that sufficient water is made available for any reasonable use in any part of the country. It does this by providing for a national plan for the development of water resources and national supervision over its execution; but it places responsibility for detail where it should be—in the river basins—where the practical work on all the matters bound up in water management has to be done. The principal effect on all water-abstracting interests will be to help them by both augmenting and improving the reliability of supplies.
This main effect, and indeed the whole object, of this Bill will, I trust, bring relief to the major water abstracters such as statutory water undertakers and large industrial concerns, and among those major abstracters must be included those who use spray irrigation. It has been estimated that 1½ million acres in this country are irrigable, and that the peak daily demand for spray irrigation in a dry season could exceed the daily demand of statutory undertakers for the public supply to the whole of England and Wales. It is the purpose of this Bill to cater for such large increases in demand.
The Bill is of substantial dimensions; so is the job to be done. The Bill establishes a sound organisation, both central and local, and provides for a
992
whole range of tasks from major works to regulate our rivers and transfer water about the country to the much more humdrum business of detailed control of the use of water. It does this with studious regard for the interests of existing users of water, large and small. Her Majesty's Government believe that its passing and operation are essential unless water in large and populous parts of England and Wales in future is to become unnecessarily scarce and unnecessarily expensive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hastings.)

THE COMMON MARKET NEGOTIATIONS
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would take the present opportunity to repeat a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal about the recent Ministerial meetings in the negotiations with the three European Communities. I must also apologise on behalf of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary Who had hoped to perform this function, but who is not able to do so. I should say, before coming to the statement, that your Lordships will also wish to know that a more detailed account of these meetings to which the statement relates is being published later this afternoon as a White Paper.
My Lords, the statement is as follows:
"At the Ministerial meeting with the European Atomic Energy Community in Brussels on November 14, the Chairman, on behalf of the Six member Governments and the President of the Commission, replied to the opening statement which my right honourable friend, the Lord Privy Seal, had made on July 3. The texts of these replies were later published by the Community, and English translations will shortly be placed in the Library.
"Discussions between officials began yesterday with an examination of the Treaty, chapter by chapter. The next meeting of Ministers will be arranged through the Deputies.
"The Ministerial meeting with the members of the European Economic Community was held in Brussels on November 15, 16 and 17. Agreement was reached on alternative arrangements for those Commonwealth countries which decline the offer of Association. First, the opportunity to associate with the Community would remain open. Secondly, the enlarged Community would declare its readiness to negotiate commercial agreements with any of these countries wishing to do so. Thirdly, there would be a very gradual application of the Common External Tariff to all the exports of these countries. Fourthly, the Common External Tariff on tropical hard woods, which are of major interest to Ghana and Nigeria, should be reduced from 10 per cent. to nil. Fifthly, it would be the policy of the enlarged Community to work towards commodity stabilisation agreements where practicable.
"It was agreed that an offer of Association should be made for Aden with the addition of a protocol dealing with the export of petroleum products from Aden to the Community. There was a full discussion of the problems affecting Malta and the High Commission territories. Ministers will consider solutions to these at a future meeting.
"Ministers discussed processed agricultural products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the first time. The Lord Privy Seal was able to agree with the Community that its offer of a very gradual application of the Common External Tariff would be an adequate arrangement for some of the smaller items. The Lord Privy Seal maintained our proposals for tariff reductions and duty quotas on others. Ministers will revert to this subject later.
"Ministers also discussed for the first time the possible arrangements for mutton and lamb. It was agreed that the proposals of the Community for the application of the Common External Tariff by stages combined with the possibility of suspension of the duty under Article 25 (3) of the Treaty of Rome should be studied further.
"The Community stated that they were not in a position to discuss the
994
agricultural finance regulation with us. A brief discussion did take place on our request for nil duties on newsprint and aluminium.
"It was arranged that the next Ministerial meeting will take place from December 10 to 12 followed by a meeting from December 19 to 21.
"In Luxembourg on November 19 negotiations were continued with the European Coal and Steel Community. Ministers noted the interim report of their officials who had not been able to conclude their examination of possible incompatibilities between arrangements in the United Kingdom for the coal and steel industries and the Treaty of Paris. The officials will continue their work on these subjects, together with two additional ones: a study of sea transport from the point of view of the pricing rules of the Treaty, and an examination of the level of the external tariffs on steel. The next Ministerial meeting will be on January 15."
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in respect of this Common Market, once more we have had a statement from the Government that is much more remarkable for what it does not say than for what it does say. So far as British agriculture is concerned, it is left again completely in the dark. So far as I can tell from the statement, there seems to have been some discussion on certain matters affecting the Commonwealth, but it is difficult to pick it out, and we shall not know how much more detail we are going to get from the White Paper until your Lordships see it in the Printed Paper Office. But I am much concerned about the Commonwealth—for instance, the references made in the statement to lamb and mutton. They do not take us very far. It seems to me that there might be a slight easement, but that may all be reconsidered—I cannot tell from the statement that is made. If the representatives of the Commonwealth do not know any more than that which is set out in the statement and in the White

995
Paper to follow, then I should think they will be pretty upset.
Apparently some applications for relief from the Commonwealth have actually been dealt with, and one or two things settled. But the kind of treatment expected to be meted out seems to me, again, to be remarkable. It is already fairly common knowledge, for example, that there will be tariff relief in respect of tinned kangaroo meat and tinned rabbits. But when it comes to an important business like the Canadian business of salmon, the answer from the Community is, "No". How far this is going on in regard to other matters I do not know, but I become more and more anxious at this policy of giving snippets of information, which mean almost nothing at all. We fear that suddenly, perhaps, we shall be faced in Parliament with a fait accompli which we have had not had time sufficiently to study.
There is reference in the statement to certain "smaller items"—that these will be dealt with. What are these "smaller items"? Why cannot Parliament know what they are? I think that perhaps what strikes me most from a major point of view is the reference to the fact that the Community stated that they were unable to proceed to consider the financial control in agricultural matters; so nothing was done. Yet all the rumours that from time to time emerge would seem to show that France is taking an attitude which would make it quite impossible to get a satisfactory easement of the British agriculture position. If that is so, why do the Government not tell us? That is the remarkable thing.
So far as I can understand the present position, the practical attitude of France at the moment is that there can be no continuation of deficiency payments from the year in which entry is made into the Economic Community, if such entry is made. Where do we go from here? What on earth can farmers be doing at the present time in making their plans on how they are to do things? I beg the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House to take these matters to his colleagues in the Government, and to say how difficult it is for us to deal with these questions at all, with these snippets of information which we are getting from time to time.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount's criticism is rather misleading. It is, of course, true that the statement does not contain information of large concluded agreements, and to that extent I would agree with him that it is more remarkable for what it does not say than for what it does say—because the policy of the statement is to say what has happened, not what has not happened. The noble Viscount is just confusing himself by describing this process as "snippets of information", because the insinuation there is that something has happened which nobody is allowed to know. That is wholly without foundation. The purpose of the bulletins which have been made from time to time is to give the House reliable information of what has happened. The reason why there is nothing about British agriculture in this one is because the questions affecting United Kingdom agriculture were not dealt with at the meetings of November 15, 16 and 17. There are, of course, large problems to be dealt with in this field, and they no doubt will play a very large part in the remaining stages of negotiations.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Why were they not dealt with?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount should get nothing but reassurance from the fact that there is nothing in this statement about them. The reason is that they were not dealt with at those meetings. I think, therefore, that this criticism is really without foundation. The same, broadly speaking, is true of the other field which the noble Viscount covered in relation to the Commonwealth. The statement says exactly what has happened in relation to lamb and mutton. If he wants to know what were the smaller items which were settled, no doubt that can be ascertained for him, although I have not the information here. I take it they were not mentioned because they were relatively so small.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Lord President for his statement, which I think is quite satisfactory so far as it goes. I would also add that I consider the offer to be very generous to the countries of

997
the Commonwealth, who have so far declined association, and I personally would urge them to accept the offer that is now made. May I ask the Lord President this question: is it not a fact that the former French Colonies had the same difficulty in accepting association, but that, when it was fully explained to them, they finally accepted it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said in the first part of his supplementary. I think it is a good offer, but I cannot give him confirmation of the point he put to me about the French Colonies because I am not sufficiently familiar with the background on that matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the heavy amount of Business before the House to-day it would be inadvisable to go into great detail on this, because we have to consider the convenience of the Members of the House. But I think we ought to be given a fairly firm assurance that we can have an early day for discussion of the White Paper, when perhaps we shall obtain some more information. When Mr. Heath addressed the Farmers' Club he had a great reception because he made a very clever political speech, but he did not spend five minutes on British agriculture. We have got nothing out of that. We have had no answer to the firm calculations of the economists of the National Farmers' Union as to what is the real effect. The Government take no notice of them; they do not tell us anything. All these things would have to be debated, and perhaps there should be a time fixed for a debate upon the White Paper.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Viscount cares to fix a date through the usual channels, there is no reason why he should not exercise the rights which are certainly and undeniably open to him. I must remind him that we discussed the Common Market fairly recently, last week, and I gathered from his criticism of the statement that not enough had happened since then to warrant a further discussion.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Debate Resumed:
LORD S1LKIN: My Lords, I believe that this is the first time the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has introduced a measure, certainly a measure of this importance. And it is important, as the House appreciates because of the large number of noble Lords who are going to take part in the debate. It will be some comfort to the noble Lord if I tell him straight away that his impressions about compulsory purchase were right, and that my impressions were wrong. I saw Section 61 (1), but overlooked Section 62 (2).
This discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill follows fairly closely on the debate which we had on May 23 last on the Government White Paper. I think it is true to say that, broadly speaking, the Bill differs very greatly from what was forecast in the White Paper. I think that the noble Lord explained that there was some difference in the constitution of the river authorities, but, apart from that, I think that what he then said about the White Paper would probably hold true about the Bill itself. One more piece of congratulation, not to the noble Lord particularly, but to the Government. I congratulate them upon the promptness with which they have introduced this measure. We very often have to criticise the Government for their slowness in implementing a Report, and it is a pleasure to be able to say on this occasion that they have been quite prompt in following up their White Paper, which itself was fairly prompt, and in dealing with the Proudman Committee.
The other piece of congratulation is this—and then, having finished with congratulations, I shall go on to the other part of my speech. I am very glad that a large part of this very complicated Bill is due to the desire of the Government to carry out a measure of consolidation. A large part of it is, of course, repetition of what is in existing measures; and for those who have to study these Acts later on it is very convenient to find them incorporated in one measure and not to have to search

999
through a large number of Acts of Parliament in order to see what the law is. We had a long and, I thought, a fairly good debate on May 23. In that debate I think every noble Lord, except one, was critical of certain aspects of the White Paper, with which I will deal later on. I am sorry to find that, while the noble Earl who replied for the Government promised to consider these criticisms—and I have no doubt he duly brought them to the attention of his right honourable friend—the fact is that not one of those criticisms has been met in the Bill. If I am wrong again, I shall gladly give way.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that he is wrong again.
LORD SILKIN: I doubt whether I am always wrong, but we shall see. If I correct what I have said to "the main criticisms", then I think I should be right: there may be some minor criticisms which have been met, but the main criticisms, as I understand them, and with which I will deal as we go along, have not been met. I think that where the White Paper differed from the views of the Proudman Committee, by and large the White Paper view has been incorporated into the Bill itself.
I do not propose to go over the ground covered in our debate of last May; I think that most of what was said at that time by most noble Lords will stand. I think we can express pleasure at the fact that, at long last, we are getting a national outlook on water supply. We may not be getting all we want, but there is, by the setting up of the special Resources Board, a body charged with the duty of looking at the question of our water supplies, and at the need for conserving, redistributing and augmenting, from a national point of view instead of, as at present, a large number of bodies each looking at their water requirements from a purely local angle. That is, of course, a tremendous improvement in the position. But the first question we want to ask ourselves is: are the duties and powers of the Board wide enough to carry out these functions, and is the structure sound? So I should like to say a few words about the duties and powers, and I have some
1000
doubts as to whether these duties and powers are adequate for the purpose.
I said a moment ago that the noble Earl had promised to consider the representations that had been made by practically every noble Lord who spoke in the debate. I think there was an obligation on those same noble Lords to consider what the noble Earl had said in justification of his point of view. I may say, for myself, that I have considered the question of these duties and powers, and I am not prepared to be as dogmatic as I was about the need for executive powers for the Water Resources Board. I think that it would be justifiable to leave those powers as they are, but to provide in the Bill for the possibility that something stronger will be required. I propose in due course to move some form of Amendment, if I can draft one which will hold water, which will give effect to that, and if it should become necessary to confer upon the Water Resources Board stronger powers than they already have it should be possible to do so without the need for introducing amending legislation. Knowing how long it takes to get amending legislation through, I am sure it would be a wise insurance to have something of that kind in the Bill.
One of my doubts is as to what is to happen if what is probably the major responsibility of the Water Resources Board has to be carried into effect; and that is the transference of water from areas where there is a surplus, to areas where there is a deficiency. The Bill strikes me as being somewhat vague as to how this can be carried into effect, and certainly the procedure that is contemplated strikes me as being long and cumbersome. Let us take as an example what would happen in the case of Manchester or Birmingham or one of these larger authorities requiring additional water which it is not able to get from its own area. It would have to get its water from the area of another river authority, and I presume that the Water Resources Board would in the course of its duties investigate the position and make certain recommendations. I am not at all clear how in actual fact this procedure would be carried into operation. I know it makes recommendations, say, to Authority A, where there is a surplus of water, that water should be

1001
transferred to Authority B, where it is required. What happens then? Perhaps the noble Earl could explain how this would work. Perhaps he could also explain who would be paid for it.
One of the reasons why many of us rather favoured executive powers for the Water Resources Board was exactly this kind of case, where we felt that it was rather burdensome on the authority with a surplus of water to carry out works for the purpose of supplying some other authority with water where they were deficient. There would be an understandable reluctance to carry out the works, on the part of the authority with the surplus of water, and certainly there might be difficulties and delays. But I should be glad to hear from the noble Earl exactly how it would really work. As I say, it is for that kind of case that it may turn out that executive powers are needed. But I will not press that point at this stage, because I feel that it may be desirable to give the Bill as it stands a fair chance and to see whether it will work with the existing powers.
I am, of course, aware of Clause 96, the clause which provides for default powers, under which the Minister may in the last resort, after a local inquiry and after default by the authority concerned, transfer to the Water Resources Board such new functions as the river authority in default may not have carried out. To that extent, as I understand the Bill, there is a measure of executive power, a contingent executive power, conferred on the Water Resources Board, but that is the only case so far as I can gather. But this is very slow and cumbersome, and certainly would take many years to carry out from beginning to end. I should like to see some more satisfactory procedure introduced into the Bill.
Then the powers of the Water Resources Board are limited. They are limited under Clause 12 to the new functions conferred on the river authorities, which are defined in Clause 3, subsection (5). In other words, the Water Resources Board would have no powers in respect of the transferred functions. Therefore, put in concrete terms, they would have no powers in respect of land drainage, fisheries, navigation, river pollution, flood control. Now I wonder why that is so. No doubt the Government have very good reasons for exclud-
1002
ing these particular functions from the powers of the Water Resources Board, but I find it difficult to understand why. To exclude these functions, especially land drainage and pollution, from the duty of conservation, which the Water Resources Board will have, seems to me arbitrary, virtually unworkable, and technically unsound. I hope that if I am right the Government will reconsider this, and certainly we will put down Amendments on this point. I may say that there is a very large amount of technical authority for the view that these functions, which are excluded under the Bill, should be included in the powers of the Water Resources Board.
Then there is the possible confusion with the duties of the Central Advisory Water Committee. That is the body responsible hitherto for the remarkable series of Reports upon which the Bill is based. The Central Advisory Water Committee were set up under Section 2 of the Water Act, 1945, and their duties are almost identical with those of the Water Resources Board. I will, with the permission of the House, just read very shortly what are the duties of the Central Advisory Water Committee. They are to advise the Minister concerned
"upon matters connected with the conservation and use of water resources; advising any Minister concerned with the administration of enactments which relate to or in any way affect the conservation or use of water resources or the provision of water supplies, upon any question that may be referred by him to the Committee in connection with the operation, or proposed amendment of the said enactments".
Those are not words identical with those which set out the duties of the Water Research Committee, but they are very similar, and unless something is done to co-ordinate the responsibilities of the two bodies I foresee that there is a danger of confusion, or that the Central Advisory Water Committee will become redundant. But the Bill says nothing about that, and I think the Government ought to direct their mind to the question of what is to be the future function, if any, of this Central Advisory Water Committee.
As regards the structure, I think that the Bill is reasonably satisfactory. I think the membership is about right. T myself should have thought that probably it would be desirable that the six

1003
or seven members should be full time, but I would not wish to be dogmatic about that; and perhaps the noble Earl will express the views of the Government on what is to be the position of the members of the Water Research Board.
I want now to come to the river authorities, and here I think there was an almost universal criticism as to both the number of river authorities that were to be set up and their constitution. The noble Earl promised that he would give those matters consideration and, again by implication, I think those who criticised were guilty of not giving further consideration to their own criticisms. As to the membership of the river authorities, I have myself given further consideration to it and I am bound to say this. I am sorry that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill did not tell us about this. But if the idea is that these 21 to 31 members are to constitute a general committee but that the actual work will be done by sub-committees, I think that that is a perfectly understandable way of carrying out their work, and from that point of view it may well be that a rather larger membership is necessitated than if the Committee were to work as one body without sub-committees; and if the right people were on the committee I would think that that could be quite an efficient way.
There is the other point, which I understand. You are going to have a considerable number of interests on that body. There will be local authority representatives, not only from county councils but from other local authorities, which is an innovation, and, I hope, from industry and agriculture. As I read the Bill, I do not think that they are particularly enumerated, but I hope there will be on the river authorities representatives of industry and of users of all kinds. If that be so, I can well understand that it might be desirable to have a rather larger membership than I had originally contemplated or than the Proudman Committee had. But when we come to the number of authorities themselves, I feel that the Government have gone wrong. They have acted against the views of the Proudman Committee and against the views of most noble Lords who spoke in the debate;
1004
and I myself can see no justification for this large number of authorities except on the basis of the Government's desire for a quiet life and to conciliate as many of the existing river boards as they possibly can. I gather that they have reduced the number by some five or six, and I well understand the wish of any Government for a quiet life and not to do anything which might antagonise existing bodies. I realise also that it is much easier to create bodies than to get rid of them once they exist.
But is this not really looking at the matter from an entirely wrong point of view? What we want to secure is the most efficient bodies for the purpose of conservation, supply and augmentation of water; and it seems to me that the Government have failed to look at this matter from a technical point of view—the hydrological, the geological and all the other "ogical" points of view which arise in connection with the consideration of this problem. Looking at the subject scientifically and technically, I find, on the best advice I have been able to get, that a proper number would be roughly the number which was recommended by the Proudman Committee—something like 40; and I hope that the Government will be prepared to look at this matter again, or at least to justify on technical grounds the reasons for the number now proposed.
Moreover, even from a financial point of view it would be desirable to have a smaller number, first, because there is going to be a difficulty in getting the numbers of technical officers that would be required. The numbers available for this kind of function are limited, and it would certainly be much easier, if the number were reduced by half, or thereabouts, to get the requisite officers of the right quality, than if the numbers are those that are in the Bill. Secondly, among the river authorities—I am not going to be specific at this stage; that would be more appropriate in Committee—there are a number which look as if they may not be able to obtain the financial resources to carry out their duties. Some are wealthy or are in wealthy areas; some are in relatively poor areas. I should have thought that it might be possible to get some kind of unification. The supply of water is a thing which should be looked at (and

1005
the Government have attempted to do so) nationally, and it might be that the right thing is to finance it nationally as well. But if you are going to maintain this local method of financing, then I think there should be some attempt to incorporate the better-off areas with the less-well-off areas, so as to create areas which are, broadly speaking, capable financially of carrying out their duties.
Now I want to say a word about the statutory water undertakings. Broadly speaking, they are not mentioned in the Bill. There is an incidental mention of them, but there is no proposal for dealing with them. When I spoke on May 23 I suggested that they might be incorporated in our considerations. After all, the former distribution system forms a very important part of our water system. We have to provide the water and we have to distribute it, and I could see no adequate reason, except the fact that water undertakings exist and there would be tremendous resistance to tampering with them too much, for not doing so.
Apart from that, if one were starting afresh, certainly I doubt whether one would decide to create separate water undertakers for the purpose of distribution as against bodies that were concerned with the supply of water. But at least I should have liked to see some definite association between the two, and this Bill provides little or nothing of that kind. If it is not possible at this stage to incorporate the water undertakers in the Bill itself, I should hope that the Government might at this late stage consider some method by which they could be brought into the general scheme, without their necessarily being taken over. There is also the danger of overlapping of functions. Some of the functions of the statutory water undertakers are similar to those of the river authorities, and even of the water research committees, and I should be glad if this point also could be looked into.
I am very glad that the Bill, although in very brief terms, makes provisions or recognises the need for the protection of amenities and the preservation of natural beauty. I am not sure that the provisions of Clause 93 are adequate, but at least it is a start that there is a recognition that those concerned with the carrying out of work must take into account the claims
1006
of amenities. As I say, this aspect will be given further consideration as we get on with the Bill.
My last point is on the question of industry. As I read the Bill, industry is being put in a specially invidious position. In other cases people who have existing rights to draw water will be able to go on drawing it, but the Bill seems to differentiate when it comes to industry and to take away from it existing rights. This strikes me as being in the nature of confiscation. I am not going to labour that point, because other noble Lords are able to speak more effectively for industry than I can. But if that were so, if industry were being placed in an invidious position, even as against agriculture, I should deprecate it. In all the nationalisation measures of the Labour Party there has never been an element of confiscation. There may have been arguments whether compensation was adequate, but we never deliberately designed our measures in order to confiscate existing rights. It would be a pity if the present Government set a bad example in that direction. If I am wrong, again I will apologise; but it did strike me that there was this discrimination against industry. At a time when we want industry encouraged, and when we are talking so much about the need for a prosperous export trade we do not want to put an unfair burden on industry itself.
I have said enough, I think, to indicate that in my view these particular provisions as to the licensing of the supply of water and of the payment by industry, where it has existing rights, should be looked at again. I have also said enough, I think, to indicate that this is a very difficult Bill, and one that will require very close scrutiny. The House will not therefore be surprised if I asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to ensure that we have adequate time to consider the Bill fully in Committee. There will be, I am sure, a very considerable number of Amendments. I am sorry that the Chief Whip is not here at the moment, but we are sometimes rather harassed and jockeyed along, and have to cut our discussions short because of time. I hope that this Bill will have all the discussion it needs and deserves. I can assure the

1007
noble Earl that we on this side of the House will not take a Party political view of this Bill. Water is a matter which concerns us all. We all want sufficiency of good, clean, pure water for domestic use, for agriculture, for industry, for fishing and all other purposes, and we will give the House every possible assistance in that direction.
4.36 p.m.
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, in this modern world we assume that, even if water is not as free as air, it should be both on tap and as plentiful. We are entitled to assume this since the Proud-man Report showed not only that we have sufficient water but that nine-tenths of all surface water has to be got rid of as surplus—by, of course, efficient land drainage. That Report proved that what we lacked was conservation, and, as the eminent Chairman emphasised repeatedly, sufficient conservation to make controls unnecessary. His Report made a good start in tackling the problem. This was improved on by the White Paper, and it is still further improved on by the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon. I welcome wholeheartedly the comprehensive aims of the Bill, and I am both impressed and in broad agreement with the means adopted to achieve them, even if I think that it can be improved in its passage through this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has explained clearly, if I may say so, how the Bill, besides transferring the present functions of river boards, sets out to co-ordinate the demands for water and to develop the resources. The demands, in order of national importance, are, I think, domestic, industrial and agricultural. I propose to deal mainly with the agricultural interest which your Lordships will notice I have placed last. This unenviable position is, I believe, simply facing the facts of life, and it has a significance and bearing on the provisions of the Bill which, in so far as they are not already met, I am sure your Lordships would wish to provide for, if practicable.
First, may I take representation? The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, dealt most fairly with the constitution of river authorities, and I have only one point
1008
to make; and that concerns the internal drainage boards. So far as the main Board is concerned, I must frankly admit that I do not see what further steps the Minister can take, apart from Clause 65, without upsetting the delicate balance proposed. However, provided that land drainage committees are set up, the power of the co-option on to committees under the River Boards Act is continued, and it should, where necessary, be exercised to the limit. Apart from arterial water courses the problems of land drainage are special and localised—more so in some areas than in others. It is often difficult now to get proper coverage of these in the membership of river boards, and it will be quite impossible on river authorities without a land drainage committee. It is incumbent on river authorities to set up a finance committee, though it is inconceivable that they would not do so. It is not quite so inconceivable that they would not set up a land drainage committee—and what is more, it is not incumbent upon them to do so.
While on representation, I should like to ask the Minister, if he cannot follow the river board procedure in laying draft orders—the difficulties of which may have been exaggerated—whether he can give an assurance that the interests will be consulted on the nominees he appoints to represent them. I have always understood that the civil servants welcomed this consultation before making their recommendations to the Ministers.
I should like now to turn to the deeply painful subject of payment so far as it affects agriculture. Although spray irrigation is a new aid to agricultural efficiency, a matter of some moment to taxpayers, the rewards from it, by reason of our climate, do not compare with those of the traditional irrigated areas of the world. The cost of water can represent a very high proportion of the expenses, and water from any new conservation works by river authorities is, in my opinion, all too likely to be uneconomic for farmers, particularly when the cost of distribution is added.
Moreover, because agricultural claims for irrigation water are last in order of national importance, they will be the first to be cut off in times of real shortage, which is when it is of the greatest value to agriculture. Clause 44 makes

1009
special provision to enable river authorities to do just this, the ugly necessity for which I accept. Incidentally, as it stands it does not make any provision in these circumstances for reducing the charges for the water authorised. But much more important, the powers under Clause 44 are not taken into account under Clause 56 (4), which sets out the relevant circumstances in drawing up a charges scheme. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to consider both these points before Committee stage.
Again, as I understand it, under Clause 56 the water that will be paid for is that authorised in the licence, which may bear no relation, owing to our erratic climate, to that consumed by the farmer. The difficulity here, to which I do not know the answer, is that of the physical measurement of water extracted by farmers. I presume that other extractors, such as industry, can make a reasonably accurate assessment of the requirements, and the water authorised in one year would approximate to what they consume. Not so in agriculture. At the one extreme, no water may be required at all one year, but will, it appears, have to be paid for; at the other, by reason of "exceptional drought or other emergency", it will be cut off but that authorised will still have to be paid for. Some more satisfactory means will have to be found for charging farmers other than by reference to the water authorised in the licence. This difficulty can be largely, though perhaps not entirely, got round where the farmer builds his own reservoir, since its capacity will be known. But there are other and far more important reasons why he should be encouraged to build a reservoir.
Water resources will be fully developed—I was going to say, by putting all hands to the pump, but perhaps that is an inappropriate metaphor—only by both public and private enterprise. It is uncertain whether agricultural irrigation will be able to bear the cost of water from new works provided by the authority. It is quite certain that it will be uneconomic for the authority to provide for irrigation water against an extreme drought, particularly when we consider that one farmer with a modern 100-sprinkler unit can consume as much water in a day as a town of 10,000 inhabitants. Again one acre of potatoes requires as much water during the irrigation
1010
period as an acre in this city. The farmer moreover, will require this water only for approximately 40 days in a year in any case—another factor which would make it uneconomic for the water authority to make provision for irrigation water in all circumstances.
In everyone's interest, therefore, farmers should be encouraged to build their own reservoirs or to co-operate together in providing these "turkey ponds", as the Australians call them. They will provide, by the way, land free of cost to the taxpayer and avoid the odium of compulsory purchase by the authority. Clause 58 seems to provide some encouragement to them, but is it enough? I am anxious to know whether, under this clause, they can expect to impound surplus or flood water free, and not just at a reduced charge. And I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that I am not asking for them to be paid for reducing the flood. If I have taken up a lot of your Lordships time on what I have described as the last on the list of national importance, it is because I hope and believe that domestic and industrial needs are adequately provided for in the Bill, and I am anxious that agriculture should not be the Cinderella of the party.
4.48 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I rise to addres your Lordships for the first time, not without some sense of trepidation. That is not unnatural on such an occasion, but at least I am fortified by the knowledge of the indulgence which your Lordships invariably extend to maiden speeches, whatever their imperfections may prove to be. I cannot say, as a noble Lord said in his maiden speech recently, that I made my maiden speech in another place in this Chamber during the years when your Lordships were accommodated elsewhere. But I did make a number of speeches in this Chamber during that time, more speeches, I hope, than I shall be tempted to inflict upon your Lordships—and, indeed, I made more than one speech on the subject with which your Lordships are concerned this afternoon.
I am sure that this Bill will receive a general welcome, not only in this House, where it has already received a very generous welcome, but also from those engaged in the supply of water and in

1011
the management of rivers and underground water resources. But, as not infrequently occurs when a Bill is greeted with general approbation, some of its provisions do not escape censorious criticism at a later stage. That, I feel, may well be the fate of this Bill. Indeed, I myself intend in a few moments to express some modest criticisms, appropriately tuned to the conditions of a maiden speech, of some of the provisions of this Bill.
The creation of these new river authorities which will assume responsibility for the management of rivers in all their aspects is, I am sure, an important step in the right direction. I think the Government are to be congratulated on having decided to take this step so promptly. At present, as the noble Lord pointed out, these responsibilities are divided between a number of different authorities—river boards, fishery boards and various navigation authorities of different kinds; also, quite a large number of local authorities have an interest in the subject. As I understand it, all these interests will now be gathered into the hands of a single authority, and that, I am sure, is a good thing.
This Bill, I think, can be regarded as the second stage in the development of what has been called a national water policy. The first stage was, of course, introduced by the Water Act, 1945. Although that Act was passed some seventeen years ago, very little was done under it until quite recently. The present Government have certainly been active in eliminating the numerous and, in some cases, weak supply undertakings. The number of water undertakings has been reduced since 1956 by amalgamation from something of the order of 1,000 to about 600.
The Act of 1945, as your Lordships will recall, dealt mainly with the distribution side of the industry. This Bill now deals with the resources side. The demand for water, as we are all aware, is increasing rapidly, and this is due not only to improved housing and sanitary conditions but to the increasing demands of industry. The Central Water Advisory Committee has estimated that the demand will have increased by something like 25 per cent. by 1965. When I recall my own experiences as a direc-
1012
tor of a large water undertaking supplying a growing industrial area, my own view would be that that is probably an underestimate. The rising demand for water will have to be met by new storage accommodation, which will involve a considerable capital expenditure upon the undertakers; by the conservation of sources, both surface and underground sources; and (I should like to stress this because the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to it also) by the transportation of water over much greater distances than is common to-day. It is to these problems that this Bill is very properly directed.
In addition to the new river authorities, it is proposed to establish another new body—namely, the Water Resources Board. In order to judge the efficacy or otherwise of this proposal it is necessary to look back to the Act of 1945 and to see what has happened since then. As your Lordships know, that Act made the Minister directly responsible for promoting the conservation and proper use of water resources. That was a novel experiment, because it made a Government Department directly responsible for a public utility. It had not been done in any other public utility: electricity supply, gas and transport had been treated in a different way. Government Departments, of course, have always possessed supervisory powers over the public utility undertakings, but it had never before happened that the Minister had been made the prime mover in a public utility. This Bill carries that process a stage further and it affords us an opportunity to review the arrangement and correct it, if correction appears to be necessary.
The view is widely held, I think, that the policy of making the Minister the active executive authority in a public utility has been a great source of weakness. I myself hold that a Government Department is not so constituted as to exercise successfully the executive functions which are needed in a public utility. I should not like your Lordships to assume that I am reflecting in any way on the ability, industry or competence of the officials who are responsible for the administration of the water service; nor, indeed, am I reflecting in any way upon the Ministers who have been responsible for it. But it seems to me that

1013
there are in the constitution of a Government Department two inherent obstacles to the discharge by a Minister of this particular function. One is that the Minister is responsible for many other problems. At one time, perhaps, he is absorbed in the organisation of the National Health Service; at another time he is absorbed in house building, and now he is absorbed in slum clearance. That makes it difficult for the Minister to give the appropriate attention to the development of a public utility.
The other reason why it has always seemed to me that a Government Department is not really a suitable body for this purpose is the constant change in personnel which takes place in a Government Department. The water industry has been fortunate in having many highly efficient officers at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to deal with their affairs; but they tend to be birds of passage, and knowledge of the complications of a public utility service is not acquired in a short time. For those two reasons, I regret that some change has not been made in the fundamental basis on which the Act of 1945 and this Bill are based.
I think that what is required is an executive body, to which can be assigned, either by transfer or by delegation, some, at least, of the executive functions now exercised toy the Minister under the Act of 1945. The water supply industry has long desired that a body of this nature should be set up. Your Lordships will find a parallel to what I am suggesting in the establishment of the Electricity Commissioners by the Electricity Supply Act, 1919. The electricity supply industry made very rapid progress under the directions of the Commissioners from the end of the First World War until reorganisation took place after the Second World War.
Not only did the industry desire that a body of this nature should be set up, but it was, I think, the recommendation of the sub-committee of the Central Water Advisory Committee that there should be an executive body of this nature brought into being and entrusted with some, at least, of the functions which are at present vested in the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The proposed Water Resources Board is really not such a body. It is, I think,
1014
a purely advisory body. I listened carefully to the noble Lord when he was dwelling on its functions; and, indeed, if your Lordships look at the appropriate Clause 12, it is evident that this body is to be an advisory body, and no more.
There are six special matters enumerated in subsection (3), and in each of these matters the functions of the Water Resources Board are to be advisory. They are:
"To consider in what way action needs to be taken… to keep under review the progress made …to bring to the notice of the Minister and of the river authority concerned any case where it appears to the Board that the arrangements in force in any river authority area with respect to any such matter … need to be revised"
and so on. All through the enumeration of their functions it is quite clear that this body will be no more than an advisory body. That, I believe, is not what is wanted.
Now I come briefly to another point, and this will be my last. The Bill provides that extraction of water from existing sources and, I think, from underground sources as well, shall be subject to licence by the new river authorities. The existing statutory water undertakers have developed these sources, and in many cases they have acquired them at considerable cost. Now their right of abstraction is to pass from them to the new river authorities, and abstraction in future will be by their consent and licence. These statutory water undertakings at present enjoy a statutory and legal obligation—I will not say they enjoy it, but there is vested in them a statutory and legal obligation—to supply their areas with water. Their ability to do so will now be made dependent upon the consent and licence of the river authorities, and the river authorities will have many other interests besides water supply.
True it is, as the noble Lord pointed out, that existing abstracters will receive a licence as of right. But I listened to the noble Lord very carefully hoping to hear that these licences will be irrevocable. I do not understand that they are irrevocable. They may, in a change of circumstances, be revoked at any time by the river authorities. I hope that when the noble Earl comes to reply he will be able to give us an assurance that these licences as of right are not

1015
revocable licences. It is not only the statutory water undertaker who is to receive a licence as of right. Other persons who are abstracting water at the material time will be entitled to a licence as of right as well. That means that an abstracter who is to-day illegally abstracting water may well, by this procedure, cure the defects in his present title and become entitled, through his licence of right, to extract water in circumstances which were illegal when the abstraction began.
This seems to me to be a reversal of the proper order of priorities. If the supply of water to the public is to be maintained, I should have thought that the statutory water undertakers should be confirmed in the use of their existing sources and the new authorities given a right of appeal to the Minister if the use which the statutory undertakings are making of their resources is regarded by the river authorities as prejudicial to the proper use of the river. I should have thought that the statutory water undertakings have at least the right to expect that.
These matters which I have been raising are no doubt matters which can be dealt with more effectively at a later stage. As I have said before, this Bill, I am sure, is assured of a general welcome. But I hope the noble Earl and the Minister will not be too ready to brush aside those who have given this country what is, I think, universally admitted to be a service of public water supply unparalleled in other parts of the world.
5.8 p.m.
THE Earl OF WOOLTON: My Lords, it falls to my very pleasant lot to be the first speaker to offer the congratulations of the House to the noble Lord who has just spoken for the speech which he has delivered, and to express to him—and I do it in no formal sense—the hope that very often we may have the pleasure and the privilege of hearing his views. I hope, having said that, that your Lordships will forgive me for the dreadful brick that I dropped just before the beginning of this debate. The Whip said to me, "You follow Ilford. You will say something about him, won't you?" I said, "Ilford? Who is he?" The Whip was in a hurry—why I do
1016
not know. I got very little out of it until I met his Lordship in the corridor, and, knowing him as an old House of Commons man, I said to him: "I say, do tell me. I'm going to have to say the customary things about a fellow called Ilford who is going to make a maiden speech in the House. Do you know anything about him?" The reply I got was, "Yes, it's me." I was very embarrassed, my Lords, and full of apologies, but there have been certain circumstances which have prevented me from being in the House for some time. I had missed the point and I was very sorry he had not stuck to the name of Hutchinson.
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord to you. I have known him for a very long time. He is a very distinguished Parliamentarian. He has done more, I think, than any other man I know to offer counsel and encouragement to members of local authorities in this country to persevere in the work that they were doing. He has, of course, been a most distinguished head of the National Assistance Board. You will have heard that he is a clear and powerful speaker and he is an administrator of high standing. On all those grounds I venture—and I am sure the House will agree with me—to hope that he will intervene in our debates frequently.
I am conscious not only of the terrible error I made in the corridor outside but of the fact that he had some criticism—very kindly criticism—to direct to the Act of 1945. Those of your Lordships who have the virtue of antiquity will remember that I was the person who introduced that Bill into this House; so the noble Lord got his own back without knowing that he was getting it. I felt very uncomfortable when he was looking at me and making those observations, but I am sure he was really looking at the noble Earl on the Government Bench who is going to reply to him later on.
Before I go further may I, with great respect, offer my congratulations and thanks to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill with so much detail and with so much quick understanding, for one phrase he used which, if he forgets it, I shall not. It was:
"We shall have no more debates in this House such as we had on the use of water from Ullswater."

1017
This Bill is complex and there is a great deal of it, but if it prevents our having another debate like that, a particularly painful debate to me, especially as it was followed by the loss of a very old and dear friend, we shall he grateful to him.
I have maintained an interest in water supply all these years. I have a technique which was born for my business life and which I cannot alter: that when a question of this nature comes up I do not read these terribly difficult Bills in detail in order to understand them; I go to the people who are operating them, or who are going to operate them and whose business it is, and ask them to tell me how it is going on and what they think about it. So when I felt I wanted to address your Lordships on this Bill I went to the West Sussex officials and asked them if they had read the Bill. My word, had they read it! They began to tell me about it and I begged them not to. I asked them to tell me how it would work and what they thought about it. They were good enough to give me quite a lot of their time.
Noble Lords on the Government Benches will, I think, be relieved to know that they told me that they welcomed the Bill, although they had much criticism to make of it. They understood it—that was abundantly clear—and they welcomed its general provisions, though they had two points which they wanted to make, which, in fact, they asked me if I would make and which were issues of principle. They were these. They felt that everybody had a right to have an inquiry into the decision of officials, and they pointed out to me that in this Bill the Government, for some reason which is not clear to me, have secured a double system, a sort of two-decker system. The officials have been round the country—at least I hope they have—and have decided that there are certain areas where amalgamation should take place and certain other areas where there may be public inquiries. This is a combination of Clauses 3 and 10.
It is very difficult to get over a decision by officials, and the people I spoke to in particular in this Sussex area regret that they are not going to have the opportunity of a public inquiry. They say that this Bill, good as it is in general, will have the effect of increasing the cost of
1018
administration; that it will create another body, a third tier in administration. They say that they have an excellent system, and they claim, I understand, that public authority has approved of it in West Sussex. There is also an excellent system in East Sussex, and they are going to be amalgamated under this Bill. They have no redress against that except to go to the Minister and beg him to have a public inquiry.
Those of us who have had the honour of sitting in Ministerial chairs know just what happens when representations are made in matters like this. The Minister, with the greatest of courtesy, listens to the representations. He has already, of course, been thoroughly briefed by his officials. His mind has been made up; that is to say, the official mind has been made up and transmitted to the Minister, who is very busy with a multitude of things more important than the minor representations that are made. We have all done it in our time. We thank the people with the greatest of courtesy for the information they have given us; we tell them that we hope that they will come again—that is one of the Ministerial white lies that I hope are not recorded elsewhere—they go; and that is the end of the story.
What is going to happen in East Sussex? I raise this as a matter of principle; otherwise I should not have raised it on a Second Reading such as this. It may be paralleled in other parts of the country; in fact I know that it will be, and I do not raise the issue and name them because I happen to be a landowner in those particular parts. But consider what is going to happen in East Sussex and West Sussex. They have two very highly efficient pieces of organisation, running very economically, and when the amalgamation takes place not only will the two organisations still be necessary but a third, a new, building will also probably go up: there will be a third tier of administration to which the present people will report. The cost will be not less than £50,000 a year, I am told, to West Sussex; and I suppose that East Sussex will be in the same condition.
The problem that I venture to put to Her Majesty's Ministers is: wherein lies the profit in such an amalgamation?—unless of course you have been misinformed geologically, and that is always

1019
possible for the Minister. Perhaps you think that the waters of East Sussex and the waters of West Sussex all come from the same place; that they have something to do with each other, and that amalgamation is reasonable. But, my Lords, the waters of East Sussex, like the people of East Sussex, will not have anything to do with the waters of West Sussex. There is, in fact, a barrier between them: a barrier of chalk, a deep barrier on which Brighton is situated. So there sits Brighton, astride of this ridge. If amalgamation takes place it will mean another tier of administration, at what cost I do not know. But I would beg the Government, as they are considering the various matters that will be raised this afternoon, to ask themselves again whether it is really necessary to have this amalgamation; whether, in the interests of economy, two bodies of people who are doing the work very well, and very economically, might not be allowed to continue in their welldoing. I hope that Her Majesty's Ministers will not be unduly influenced by the City of London, which of course is loving this process of take-over. My belief is that whenever the Government take over something they increase the cost of administration, burden the ratepayers still further and do not, in fact, create a better organisation.
Therefore, my Lords, as a matter of principle I venture, in giving general commendation to this Bill, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not be well advised to recognise this very well-established right of public inquiry, where information is elicited; where, indeed, information and the reasons for conclusion are given to the public. That practice is a great satisfaction to these gentlemen who have voluntarily given their lives to this form of public service, who want to continue in it and never can be quite as happy if over and above them there sits another body—I hesitate to use the sentence I was going to use, because I am greatly indebted to the Civil Service of this country for a great deal of help which they have given me in the various offices that I have been privileged to hold. I do feel that to put another body, in their minds an unnecessary body, over and above the people who have been
1020
working is not a good thing in public administration.
I have a great many notes here, as your Lordships see. I had intended to occupy more of your time, but I am very troubled by the fact that 22 people are going to speak in this debate. I have asked what was going to happen, and I am told that it will continue beyond 9 o'clock. I am sure that some of your Lordships are going to be very hungry by the time the debate is over, and perhaps that will not be for the general good. Therefore, I am not going to make the other observations that I had intended to make. I hope you will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill to-night and I hope that, with some gratitude for the consideration of the House, Her Majesty's Ministers will deal with the points that noble Lords have already raised in criticism of the Bill.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I am sure that I shall find favour with your Lordships in that I shall be very brief in my remarks and shall probably occupy only about five minutes of your time. But before I raise one or two matters for consideration it is my privilege from this side of the House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord spoke from the Cross-Benches and made certain suggestions of which I hope the Government will take notice. I had knowledge of the noble Lord's interest in water undertakings, and I am certain that in his present office he is doing excellent social work on behalf of a certain section of the people.
What I have to say may have been already covered, and will certainly be covered during the course of the discussion that is to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in his opening remarks about the Bill, gave it very wide coverage. Unfortunately, for what was likely to happen after his speech, I thought he was very quick in covering the Bill, but at any rate it was good to hear that the Bill had many good points. There are also other points which will no doubt have to be dealt with in Committee, but in general terms we on this side of the House welcome the Bill. The noble Lord said that it was in some respect designed to make an

1021
improvement of supplies in rural areas. My interest in the Bill is of a rural nature, and I am concerned particularly with what happens in regard to our agricultural industry. I was glad also to realise that the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, was in his place this afternoon and was able to give your Lordships the benefit of his wealth of experience in water matters. The noble Lord raised a question on the representation of the drainage authorities and the various other authorities, and I would endorse what he said in regard to that; not only that there should be representation but that there should be full consultation at all stages with the recognised drainage authorities of this country.
The noble Lord also raised a question about the charges in regard to the supply of water for public purposes. The Bill provides for the levying of charges, more or less on fixed rates. There is one clause which deals with the question of the fixation of charges over the period of five years. I hope that when we further consider it there may be some alteration in the length of time, if that is the definite time for a particular charge, because, as the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey said, the taking of water for agricultural purposes is uncertain in regard to various periods and for different circumstances. However, I am encouraged in what I have said with regard to charges, in that Clause 56 (5) (b) says:
"The charges levied under the scheme in any financial year of the river authority shall be levied at such rates (not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the scheme) as appear to the river authority to be requisite for balancing their water resources account."
That conveys to my mind that there is no question whatever about profit making and that this particular undertaking will be a great national service, and for that reason must be commended
There is a point on which I should like to have further information. It concerns the licence fee of £5 in regard to agricultural supplies. Is this £5 to be an annual fee? If so, it may fall rather hardly upon certain smallholders if their holdings come within the scope of the Bill and they are subjected to it. It is well known that generally the supply of water in the countryside is by way of wells or boreholes. I wonder whether in the case of new wells being sunk or
1022
new bores being put down this fee of £5 covers the additional supply of water which might come from the particular sources.
There is another question regarding the point of precepts. Clause 79 deals with the question of precepts on county councils or county boroughs. I am wondering what the position is in regard to precepts on those particular bodies so far as they relate to the amount of money which may have to be found by rural district councils or borough councils. Precepting seems to be on the county councils and county boroughs, and it is obvious. I think, that if a rural district council has a water undertaking they will have to meet the rates which arc levied by reason of those precepts. In the ordinary way at present there are certain water rates in country areas, and whether we obtain water or whether we use our own wells we are due to pay this additional water rate in our ordinary rates. I wonder, therefore, whether the additional precept which may have to be made and which may fall eventually on the rural district councils or the borough councils will have to be passed on to the people using the water. I do not want to trouble your Lordships further in regard to those points.
There is one final point with regard to the composition of the river authorities. Having read the Bill, I feel that these bodies are likely to be unwieldy in regard to membership. I wonder whether some alteration should be made to limit or curtail the membership of a river authority. Its present large membership may be rather unwieldy and it may be difficult for it to perform its function.
5.35 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence in rising to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House, on two scores: the first is lest I should be contentious. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, at the beginning of his speech in introducing this Bill say that a Water Bill is a contentious and controversial Bill. In thinking how to approach the point I have to make, and in order to be uncontroversial, I asked the advice of a friend in another place, who remarked that water is always controversial. So I feel some admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who managed in his maiden speech to avoid being controversial.

1023
When I considered the difficulties and dangers of being controversial on this score, I felt that it was not so much to noble Lords opposite, or indeed to noble Lords on my left, that I might appear controversial, but that the danger might be, as noble Lords opposite are often quick to notice and indeed to point out, that I should be controversial to noble Lords sitting on the Benches where I sit. However, if I am controversial—and I shall do my best not to be—I hope that noble Lords who follow me will castigate me for it suitably.
The second score upon which I ask your Lordships' indulgence is lest I should appear to be talking "parish pump". There is a nice balance, I think, between coming here to your Lordships' House and talking on something about which one feds one knows something, and in talking just about parochial affairs. I come to you to talk on this Bill as a member of a river board. I have been either a member of a river board or a co-opted member of a river board committee for almost the last twelve years—in fact, almost from the time river boards started. I hope that there is a nice balance between what I am going to say, which really concerns my own river board and which might be said to be (and I think it is possible that certain opponents of what I have to say may feel that it is) "parish pump", and coming here. I hope that you will be able to agree with me afterward that it is not mere parochialism.
I feel that what I am raising is a most important administrative issue, and it is one that really concerns Lakeland. I use the term "Lakeland" because it involves those parts of two river boards of Cumberland and Lancashire which are to be amalgamated, and that part of it with which I am particularly concerned is the Northern part. Before I come to this administrative issue, I should like to say that I welcome the basic purpose of this Bill. Conservation, and the idea of putting conservation with the existing functions under one authority, seems to me a most admirable arrangement and one that can only lead to a better use of our water supplies. I think that practically all of us are agreed on that score.
As I say, my criticism is one purely of administration. We had a White Paper,
1024
and in the Appendix to the White Paper it was suggested that the Cumberland River Board should be amalgamated with part of the Lancashire River Board. We had certain informal assurances. I think we put forward this as being our view, as well as its being, as it turned out, the view of the Government. We had informal assurances on this issue that the existing Cumberland River Board with that part of North Lancashire which goes down to the Lune would be included in the new board suggested by the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said in his speech that there would be room for modification, and I beg the Government to consider this point very seriously, because it seems to me, in view of some of the issues I am going to raise, that there is room for going back to the original idea.
Under the Bill, which is different in this respect from the White Paper, Clause 3 and the First Schedule envisage the proposed river authority as stretching from the Border down to Wigan, from the Pennines to the Irish Sea. It embraces all the old Cumberland River Board as well as the old Lancashire River Board. We in Cumberland and in North Lancashire are not happy about this at all. We cannot quite make out why there has been this change of mind. Is there a conflict of opinion in the Ministry about it? It seems to me very much as if there is. If that is so, I can fully understand it because it is an extremely knotty point—one to which we have certainly given a great deal of thought and in regard to which, evidently, the Government have made a very definite change of plan.
As late as July, the Government were still thinking in terms of the area for Cumberland as laid down in the White Paper; then suddenly, when this Bill was laid on the Table on November 7, we found this change, a change which we had not expected at all. It seems to me that there are very cogent reasons against this. The area envisaged by the White Paper—that is to say, Cumberland, Westmorland and North Lancashire, which I call "Lakeland" because, after all, the Lakes are to be found in those three counties—has a very strong affinity, which arises from its central mass of mountains. It seems to me that it is hydrologically one, it is topographically

1025
one, and that, from the point of view of water conservation, land drainage, agriculture, fisheries, and the rural nature of the area, which has its own peculiarities, it hangs together as a unit. A chief factor in this hanging together as a unit is the National Park. It is the largest and most renowned National Park in the country, and it seems to me that you cannot add a substantial part to this area and still have your National Park. The characteristics of Central Lancashire are wholly different, it being largely an urban, industrialised area. It has absolutely no topographical affinity with the Lakeland area at all. I very much doubt if it has a hydrological affinity with it.
This is, I think, a more difficult problem to answer, and is really one for engineers and experts to work out, but it seems to me that the Lakeland area is one, with the central massif of these mountains and the rivers belonging to it—namely, the Eden, the Lune, and all the Lakeland rivers themselves. The Ribble, which is the river which concerns Central Lancashire, is really quite different: it is a Pennine River and has no affinity with the rest of the bloc at all. Again from an administrative point of view, I do not know whether your Lordships realise how difficult it is to travel North-South in this area. Where, for instance, would the headquarter meetings be? Would they be at Preston? If they were held at Preston, or even Wigan or some other place in the South—and I think that the weight of population would demand that they should be there—it would be extraordinarily difficult to administer from the point of view of officials, staff and the members of the boards. I feel it would discourage a good many people from serving on such boards, particularly people who live in the Northern part of the area. I cannot help feeling that the extra administrative cost would be out of all proportion to the gain in efficiency.
Then, most important of all so far as we are concerned, is the question of representation. Central Lancashire, if it is added on to this Lakeland area, is going to overwhelm us in the proportion of something like eight to one. As it is, in that area the five county boroughs of Central Lancashire are already clients of Manchester. Your Lordships will remember that you had certain discussions in this respect in February, and,
1026
although I was not then a Member of your Lordships' House I read the report of the debates very thoroughly. In fact, if I had not had flu at the time I would have been sitting on the steps of the Throne.
But I cannot help feeling that the Bill was thrown out primarily because it was really a short-term expedient; it had a limited objective, and these limited objectives and short-term expedients, it seems to me, damage long-term planning. I think that is really the reason that moves me most in urging that your Lordships should reconsider this point—the feeling that if you tag a wholly urban and industrialised area on to this great Lakeland, National Park area you are going to get an imbalance which is going to be disastrous. If this does happen, one will inevitably be forced by the pressure of consuming and extracting interests into short-term expediency and limited objectives. Why should one not add Central Lancashire, this Ribble bit, to the South, as originally thought, or make it a separate river board on its own?
Both the noble Lords, Lord Woolton and Lord Wise, have suggested that possibly some of these units are already administratively unwieldy. I admit there have been others, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested, which were not big enough. My Lords, there are two views on this question, and if one were to give the Ribble area its own river board one would have an area with a rateable value of something like £15 million; it would, in any case, already be bigger than most of the existing river boards.
There are these two possibilities, and I beg the Government to consider very seriously whether they cannot revise their opinion, either to go back to the suggestion of the Government as put forward in their admirable White Paper, or to make the Central Lancashire area a separate area. In suggesting that it should be a separate area, I want to make an even stronger plea for this Lakeland authority, which it seems to me would be the right one to have. If, first of all, you take rateable values as an indication of relative strength, then the Lakeland authority would be bigger than eight of the river authorities that have been proposed.

1027
I admit that rateable value is not altogether relevant here, because under the new water conservancy arrangements rateable value is not going to be the factor determining finance, but at any rate it is an indication of financial strength. As I say, a Lakeland authority as envisaged by my river board would be bigger than eight of the existing ones; if we were to take area as the criterion it would be bigger than eleven. Neither of these things has very much point, because size in this respect is not a matter of financial strength; nor is it altogether a matter of area, except from an administrative point of view. The thing that is really important is the conservation problem, and if we look at this as a conservation problem then it seems that a Lakeland authority is big enough and could be viable in every way. I listened particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on this problem of the viability and size of the thing, and, taking into account everything he said, it seemed to me that you still cannot shoot down my suggested Lakeland authority from the point of view of size.
Lastly, with regard to the Lakeland National Park and the whole of this Lakeland area, the position is absolutely unique. I think one must consider that there is no other area quite like it in the whole of England and Wales. It has a conservation problem. Sometimes I think our opponents in this rather suggest that we look upon conservation in the ordinary everyday sense of the word, and not in the sense in which it is used in this Bill, but I assure you that we do not. We realise that we have vast quantities of exportable water and that the consumer must come first. But I beg your Lordships to remember that consumers do not consume only water; they consume other things, and the Lakeland National Park is one of those things. I think that we might very seriously damage it if we were to tack it on to an area with which it had nothing in common, creating an administrative unbalance as well as a representational unbalance. I cannot see that being a good working arrangement. I do therefore hope that you will see your way to thinking very seriously about this again.
Obviously, as I mentioned before, you have thought about it very seriously and have changed your minds. There is a
1028
conflict of opinion within the Ministry about this. There must be. It stands out a mile that, for some reason or other, you have suddenly decided that your original suggestion must go and that you must have this one in. It is not for me to make suggestions as to how this decision has come about, but when the time comes I should like to move an Amendment that we should go back to the proposal in the White Paper. If we cannot go back to that, can we in some way leave the door open, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, suggested at the beginning of his speech, so that we are not now presented straight away with the river authority as is suggested in the Bill but that is struck out of the Bill and we can try the other methods or see what happens without constituting a new authority? I am sure that that can be done. I see that a good deal of interest has been taken in my point on this by the noble Lords sitting opposite. May I urge them once again to remember that this Lakeland authority, this Lakeland Park which is unique, has a viability of its own as a water authority, and beg the Government to reconsider their decision?
5.54 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have the very great pleasure and privilege of congratulating the noble Lord who has just sat down upon his maiden speech. I congratulate him for a very large number of reasons. I think he is to be congratulated on his title. "Henley" is a very suitable title if you are going to make a maiden speech about waiter, although when we heard his speech it was about an area very much further North than the River Thames. He wondered whether he would be controversial. I can assure him that he was not controversial within the meaning of the Act, and that he did not talk "parish-pump" politics. He brought his own special knowledge to bear; and that is one of the great attributes of this House; that we have in this House people with specialised knowledge and that they speak to that specialised knowledge. I thought that it was a wholly admirable speech, and a very powerful one, and I have no doubt that there is a good deal of worry on the Front Bench as to how it shall be answered That is as it should be.

1029
My Lords, I should also like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on the comprehensive and admirable way in which he introduced this very complex and long Bill. But I should like to express my great disappointment, that I am unlikely to be able to be here this evening to hear the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, wind up. I have already apologised to him, because I have to leave to catch a train, but I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships' House as well. I realised recently, when I sat a little lower down than I am at the moment, what a frustrating thing it is for a junior Minister to sit all the way through a long debate, carefully noting all the points that are made in order to answer them, only to find that there is nobody in the House to hear one do so. I therefore apologise both to the House and to the noble Earl: it is not my wish that this has to be.
In speaking to this subject we must all declare an interest, and I have to declare at least three interests. I have for long been associated with a water company; I have been associated with the River Boards' Association; I am also an agriculturist, and very much involved in this subject, and I have a personal interest, in that one of the first speeches I ever made in your Lordships' House was about water. I am delighted to find that one of the points I was then making—this was way back in 1957—is now in the Bill; that is to say, that we should have to use the rivers very much more for water supply purposes, than we had been accustomed to think of using them in the past.
I do not propose to speak on the agricultural points. They have already been well covered by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. All I should like to say is that, on the whole, I think, farmers welcome this Bill. They are glad to see that the vital land drainage duties of the river boards will be carried on under the new Bill, and will be carried on under the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers realise the necessity for the control of irrigation—this great new use of water. It was most impressive when the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, told us that an acre of potatoes is as thirsty as an acre of Londoners, and can use as much water. Agriculturists realise that this new use of water
1030
must be controlled, but they are worried, and I think rightly worried, as the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, pointed out, about some of the charging provisions in this Bill as they will relate to them. Incidentally, the agriculturists are glad, I am sure, to see that the Minister of Agriculture retains his responsibility under this Bill. The farmers would not have liked, I think, to see a Water Resources Board with executive powers, or an autonomous Board, such as some other sections would have liked. Agriculturists also, I think, echo the fears that were expressed in our last debate by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, that it may not be practicable to bring all the river authorities into existence on the one date. This is a matter to which I should like to return later.
As for the river boards, they welcome the proposals to establish these new authorities, and they accept the need for the new approach. They think the Government were right to set the membership of these new authorities at between 21 and 31, and they would not have wished to see the setting up of small authorities, as was recommended in the Proudman Report, of 10 or 15 people. They are glad that the county councils will be represented and will have a bare majority. I am sure that your Lordships were interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on that point as to why the county councils have got back into the picture; and the explanation was completely satisfying to me. The local knowledge of such people is immensely important.
Of course, when we talk about the amalgamation of the existing river board areas, or the enlargement of them, this is a very difficult subject indeed for river boards. Your Lordships were reminded that originally there were to be 7 amalgamations, that 18 river board areas would remain unchanged, and that there would be 2 conservancies remaining, the Thames and the Lee, so that we should have 27 authorities in all. But we see in this Bill that there will now be only some 6 amalgamations, so that there will be 26 authorities, plus 2 conservancies—28 in all. The authorities have actually grown in number since the White Paper was issued. This has been brought about, of course, by the dissolution of the marriage

1031
between Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, or perhaps I should say the fact that it has been announced that the marriage will not now take place.
The difficulty of these amalgamations is very great, but there are those (and I think I number myself among them) who still believe that these amalgamations will have to come, and that there are far too many river authorities envisaged in the First Schedule to the Bill. But we have heard to-night, from the powerful speech by the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, and the maiden speech of Lord Henley, that two of the proposed amalgamations at least, of East and West Sussex and of the Cumberland and Lancashire Boards, are far from welcomed locally. So what difficulties there will be if the Government do have to use their power ultimately to force more, I do not know. However, I must admit that I wondered why, in the case of the Cumberland and Lancashire area, this change was made. It was not in the White Paper, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, and at that time, when I was apt to know more of what was going on, it certainly was not envisaged. But we shall no doubt hear from the noble Earl who is to wind up the debate what were the reasons for this change.
My Lords, I should now like to direct your attention briefly to one or two points connected with the statutory water undertakers. These are nothing to do with funerals, but this is the jargon in the water industry. We always refer to ourselves as statutory undertakers—meaning the supply companies who have statutory duties under the Act. This point was well made in the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford; and the whole point that I want to make here could have been so much better covered by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, who spoke so cogently on this matter in the debate on May 23. Unfortunately, however, he had another public engagement which he had to keep; he knew that he would have to leave the House about now, and he was therefore not able to put his name down to speak.
Now the water industry accepts the need for future measures for the conservation and management of water resources in England and Wales, and the Government's decision to legislate on the
1032
lines of the White Paper and on the discussions which have taken place is welcomed. But, though the provisions of the Bill generally are welcomed in principle, there are sincere doubts which I want to bring to your Lordships' attention as to whether the provisions of the Bill will be workable or effective. The water industry wonders, for instance, whether in this Bill the Government fully recognise their special position as statutory water undertakers. Your Lordships will appreciate that this group of water users, who are also the suppliers to the public, is the only group which has a statutory duty and obligation to furnish supplies to those that are entitled to demand them.
These statutory obligations are, of course, contained in the 1945 Water Act, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I quote a short passage from paragraph 31 of the Third Schedule to that Act, because it puts the matter beyond all doubt. This paragraph reads:
"The undertakers shall provide in their mains and communication pipes a supply of wholesome water sufficient for the domestic purposes of all owners and occupiers of premises within the limits of supply who under the special Act are entitled to demand a supply for those purposes".
My Lords, the trouble about this Bill is that in Clause 14, which gives us the duties of the water authorities, there are no priorities set out. Is it unreasonable to ask that, as this Bill goes through Parliament, there should be added to this clause something that will make the duty to supply which is contained in the 1945 Act the paramount duty, and that there should be set out who shall have the right of priority to the resources of the river authority?
Paragraph 19 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 1693), which we debated in May, seemed to go a good way to meeting the point—and I quote:
"River authorities will have a positive duty of water conservation, with the object of ensuring that water is available for all legitimate needs",
and it went on to refer to the statutory undertakers. Paragraphs 35 to 37 of the White Paper, under the heading, "Relationship between River Authorities and Statutory Water Undertakers", took the point well. Paragraph 35 says:
"Statutory water undertakers, because of their statutory duty to maintain a constant supply of water, have a special interest in a new system for water conservation"

1033
These admirable sentiments which I have quoted from the White Paper have not, however, been carried into the Bill. There are no words comparable to them in the Bill. In the Bill we find much more a situation that all are equal under the Bill, and that it will be for the new river authorities, the Water Resources Board, the Minister and everybody else to make up their minds from time to time which user or potential user has a priority.
My Lords, I think that this is a real worry. I think that this is a point to which we shall have to return a great deal while we are discussing this Bill; and I do not apologise for emphasising it strongly now. In fact, as the Bill proceeds I think it may be necessary to try to get new words written into the Bill, rather than—and I say this with great respect—to rely simply upon assurances that may be given from the Government Front Bench. The form of words which, if written into the Bill, would help, would more properly, I think, be considered on Committee stage.
The next point to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships—again through the eyes of the statutory water undertakers—is the Water Resources Board itself. Was I not right in thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, was perhaps a little on the defensive when he spoke about the Water Resources Board? I am glad that he thought it necessary to speak at some length and to try to reassure us this was really a strong Board. But as proposed in the Bill, this is certainly not the body that the supply authorities hoped to see in the Bill. There is, of course, to be a balance between the autonomous executive body and the advisory body, but the scales have been weighed very heavily on the advisory side.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in leading for the Opposition, mentioned this point, and felt that it might be necessary to come with an Amendment here, and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, also deal: with this point. I wonder whether one of the ways of dealing with this might not be (this really should be deait will) in Committee) to add to the end of Clause 12 (2) some words enabling the Minister to give certain delegated executive powers to the Water Resources
1034
Board if he felt it necessary. One could add:
"and of dealing with such matters as they may be required by the Minister to deal with under authority delegated by him".
This would keep the door open. We feel that at the moment as the Bill is drafted, it has become closed. I suspect that the noble Earl will say that under Clause 12 (3) (a) the door is open. Well, I hope that is enough, and I shall be very interested, if I am not here, to read what he has to say about that if he refers to it to-night. Lord Hastings emphasised that the Board had duties. Indeed it has duties, but as I read the Bill, the Board has duties to advise, not duties to do.
To turn to the river authorities, the main criticism many of us feel—and certainly the water industry does—is that there are too many of them. The subsequent regroupings are allowed for under the provisions of the Bill. This will be very difficult once we have set up these bodies under their new style and title and constituted their membership. If the Government still think there are rather too many it would be better to reduce them now, rather than rely on being able to reduce them later. One reason, it seems to me, why it is dangerous to have too many authorities is that there is a great shortage of capable technical staff. These river authorities will be quite useless unless they have very high-quality staff in their employment.
That leads me to the next point, which was made by Lord Sinclair of Cleeve before he left—I wish he were here to make it himself. If the Government insist that there must be this large number of authorities, would not a good compromise perhaps be that they should not all start functioning on the same day, the second appointed day? To make them all in a fit state to function on the second appointed day is going to be a strain. Perhaps this idea can be reconsidered. I know that it was referred to in the last debate, and I read the reply which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, then gave. But the difficulties of administration are not always insuperable if there is a will to surmount them.
Next, a word on representation: If the statutory water undertakers have their duties recognised, as I would wish them to be recognised, in the Bill, it will

1035
not be so important that the representation of the water supply undertakings should be numerically adequate. But if there is to be no change of that sort in the Bill I beg leave to doubt whether representation is at the moment quite adequate. There is one other point regarding representation that I should like to make. Under Clause 8 there is to be some special member representing a special interest, and I submit there should be a duty on the Minister to appoint an alternate member. May I elaborate for a moment? Suppose the Minister feels that under Clause 8 he is entitled to appoint a representative of, say, the Transport Executive or the Coal Board or some such body. It would be wrong if, while the appointed member were ill or otherwise absent and a decision had to be taken, there was no special representation of that organisation which the Minister himself felt ought to be represented. I know the difficulties are again administrative, but I think they are only there to be surmounted.
This brings me to another point, that river authorities should work very largely through sub-committees. They are very large authorities with up to 31 members. Under paragraph. 32 of the Third Schedule it would seem that the river authority could appoint a subcommittee and co-opt experts to that sub-committee. I hope this is so. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman and I am always a little doubtful of how important a paragraph in a Schedule really is compared to a clause in the Bill itself. But if this is so it would have the effect of preventing the authority, which is rather big and unwieldy, from trying to become even bigger, but experts on the authority could work through subcommittees where co-option is possible.
The two main sub-committees that river authorities should have would be one for conservancy and supply and another for the drainage and pollution matters, which would be wholly under the other Minister. When this matter was raised in a previous debate on this subject, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe replied that he was chary of laying mandatory duties on an unborn baby. The baby is now very much nearer to being born and perhaps when it is born he would not be adverse to laying duties
1036
on it here in the form that I would wish. There are many other matters that are of interest and causing concern at the moment to the water industry: some matters relating to licences and some regarding changes. But I will not worry your Lordships with them now; they can be taken at a later stage in the Bill.
In conclusion, I would say just this. If a Bill of this nature is to become an Act which will be acceptable and workable, it must take a middle course. Obviously, it is a contradiction in terms that the status quo should be retained for certain of the interested parties, while others have to change because of the very nature of the reforms and new policies that are required. But I believe that the Government have come to just about the right balance in this Bill, subject to details and qualifications of points that have been made already and will be made later in this debate. I believe that it is absolutely essential that the various interests work together and do not take up positions and fight for their own existing rights. That is why a middle Position, a compromise position, a proper balance, is so essential. If there have been any hatchets bought in the past by various interests in the water world, now is the time to bury them, and per contra this is certainly not the time to go out and buy hatchets with the feeling that this Bill means that those interests must defend themselves against their great rivals.
This is a formidable Bill of 122 pages of print, of 119 clauses, and with 11 Schedules. Obviously it is going to occupy a great deal of your Lordships' time in the coming weeks, but I think that this time will be well spent, because this is a valuable measure on a most important subject. I, for one, give it a sincere welcome and beg leave to commend it to your Lordships.
6.23 p.m.
LORD FLECK: My Lords, I would wish to associate myself with the congratulatory remarks that have been already extended to the noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon. I believe that both of them have made contributions that are of substantial value to the discussion of this Bill. I venture to intervene in this debate in your Lordships' House because I have had industrial experience

1037
over more than thirty years, when the importance of the availability of water to industry was firmly impressed on me. Therefore, it is as an industrialist that I venture to address your Lordships. In particular, my experience has lain in the water resources of the Tees Valley, and therefore to that extent I declare that I had a specific interest, although I no longer have any specific interest now.
In the course of that experience I have been brought into contact with the views of the Nature Conservancy on water matters and I wish to emphasise that, in my opinion, the views of the Nature Conservancy on water matters usually contain much of substance and should be given a weight of due importance. That does not mean, of course, that the views of the Nature Conservancy have to be accepted wholeheartedly and completely, but I emphasise that they are very good and I would hope that when this Bill is being amended there will be provision for the formal record of the Nature Conservancy views whenever a new water project is being debated.
By that means I would hope that both agricultural and industrial needs can be developed without in any way doing harm to the natural phenomena of our country and that its natural beauties and natural resources will be preserved. I know, of course, that Clause 93 urges the Water Resources Board to take due cognizance of natural phenomena, but I would suggest that we should make provision for the views of the Nature Conservancy to be formally and definitely recorded.
So I am one of those who welcome in broad principle the objectives of this Bill. It seems to me that it comes timely upon the hour, when there is a lot of world movement to promote the best use of water and water resources. I need only refer to the coming into existence of the International Hydrological Programme, supported as it is by UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and by the World Meteorological Organisation. If we are to play our part in such international work, the assessment of our water resources and water position, as mentioned under Part III of this Bill, will be of very considerable value.
1038
The establishment of a strong Water Resources Board, with its small membership of seven and almost adequate powers, seems to me to be a very worthy piece of centralisation which in time will be fully justified, provided always—and the point has already been made by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegravé—that the proper steps are taken to have it adequately staffed with well qualified technical staff. I said "almost adequate powers" because I notice that the Bill denies the Board the right to come in for dealing with interests in pollution, land drainage and flood control. That, of course, does not apply to the river authorities but, so far as I can gather, it does apply to the Water Resources Board. To my mind it is essential, if the assessment of water resources as outlined in Part III of the Bill is to be properly carried out, that this discrepancy between the Board and the river authorities should be remedied and removed.
In terms of its practical application, however, I must also express some criticism of the proposal to set up 26 river authorities. This number has already been criticised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I join with them in the criticism. By all the rules of good organisation, of which I have knowledge, surely this is an excessive number of boards? The National Coal Board divide the country up into eight divisions. The Gas Council go a little further to eleven. The Electricity Generating Board go back to five. All these organisations have financial responsibilities running into many hundreds of millions of pounds per annum and social responsibilities. Such a large number of authorities as are proposed, I feel encourages the development of parish pump discussions and gives all too readily opportunities to develop local viewpoints against national interests.
I have not heard Members of your Lordships' House refer this afternoon to the symposium which was organised some four weeks ago by the Institution of Civil Engineers. It was on the subject of water resources and, to my mind, is a valuable contribution to the technicalities of this whole question. One of the important points brought out was the need of integration for the control of

1039
water resources, both surface and underground. In particular, I should like to mention the paper by Dr. Buchan, of the Geological Society. Among other things he deals with is artificial replenishment. This consists of diverting surplus surface water in times of plenty to underground strata from which it can be pumped in drier times. There are no doubt technical questions in this matter still to be solved; and there is, of course, the economic complication that the person who spends money and effort in diverting and recharging the aquifer (if I may be allowed to use the technical term) may find that someone else reaps the benefit.
Another subject dealt with by Dr. Buchan is the complementary and integrated use of surface and ground waters; that is to say, underground sources are rested in winter, when there is an overabundance of surface supply, and pumped in summer when surface waters are scarce. In other words, the proposal is to use underground aquifers as reservoirs—and, after all, can anybody else devise a cheaper source of a reservoir than that already provided underground? On a small scale—and I emphasise that it is a small scale—some of us on the North-East coast have already had experience of this method, and on the evidence so far available it has been found to be good.
I wish to emphasise strongly that to operate these devices to the maximum benefit one authority should be in control of both the surface and the underground sources. Unfortunately, underground geological strata do not conform with surface water river systems. Consequently, the proposals in the Bill for 26 authorities, most of them being relatively small, are unlikely to encourage this desirable form of conservation. To get the full benefit each authority must be as large as is practicable. It is not for me this afternoon to sketch possible larger river authorities so as readily to meet this need for integration. One sketch map that I have seen shows five possible regions. Another section of the symposium to which I have already referred speaks of a possible re-examination of the 80-year-old papers on national water supply, written by five authors, published by the Royal Society of Arts, all of whom
1040
divided the country into districts and none into more divisions than 14. In any case, I would add my voice to a plea that the Minister should reconsider the definition of the number of river authorities, and possibly, if there is no better administrative way, deal with the point by Order, after the Bill has become law.
Criticisms have also been raised against the composition of the river authorities with a membership of between 21 and 31, where a majority of the members, as I understand it, will come from constituent councils and there may be only one member well equipped to speak for industry. This surely is a very ill-balanced piece of organisation. I consider myself not at all liable to underestimate the value of agriculture to this country; but, equally, we must always, in season and out of season, recognise the importance of manufacturing industry. And so it is essential, above all, to my mind, to see that a proper balance is maintained between those two interests. Neither should dominate over the other.
In the proposed constitution of the river authorities, by the very nature of the source where the majority of member come from, it seems to me that there is a liability amounting almost to a certainty, that people with an agricultural outlook will be very prominent—they may even be dominant. And lest there be any doubt about this, the Bill provides for a number of members representing agriculture, land drainage and fisheries. The one man nominated because of his industrial experience may have a formidable task, not only because of his numerical inferiority, but because on any industrial river he may represent the greatest use, both in quantity and number of users. And, as has already been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, he may even be absent on proper business on a crucial day.
I should hope, therefore, that before this Bill receives the Royal Assent two things will be provided for: first, that the total number of members of a river authority will be reduced to say, between 10 and 15, in order to make the authority more of a working unit and less of a public meeting; and, secondly, that steps will be taken to ensure that the various interests—statutory water

1041
undertakings, landowning interests, agricultural interests and industrial interests—will have their responsibilities acknowledged by some measure of representation comparable with their integrated financial and quantitative responsibilities. I noticed that in the debate in this House in May last the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe referred to the:
"understandable principle of no taxation without representation."
If he relates industrial representation to the total industrial contribution towards the finances of each river authority, then I am confident that justice will not only be done but will be seen to have been achieved.
So, as I approach my conclusion, my Lords, I would refer briefly to licensing. Industry on its own account abstracts over 2,000 million gallons per day from rivers, streams and underground. This is at least as much as is taken by the statutory water undertakers. Most of this industrial load is abstracted, as I understand it, by legal right. By this Bill these rights are confiscated (and perhaps I may associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in using that word) without compensation, and the amount of water thereafter can be obtained only at the discretion (that is the point I would emphasise) of the river authority; and, furthermore, there is every prospect that the industrialist will have to pay for it. No other group is treated in this way. The statutory water undertakers are to be entitled, as I understand it, to as much as corresponds as nearly as may be (and that is the phrase used in the Bill, I think) to their existing statutory right. The agricultural user is given, I believe, as great a right or even a greater right than he now enjoys, to abstract all he needs; and he needs no licence and pays no charges. Why, then, are these very great discrepancies made in the treatment of the industrialists? Here, again, my plea is for something approaching equality of rights.
Finally, I would ask that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should give us some assurance that he will take a greater positive official interest in industrial water. This can be assured only by a development in the Ministry's organisation as we know it at present. We should like to know
1042
that there is in the Ministry staff definitely assigned to industrial water considerations. It is not for me to elaborate or even sketch the precise machinery within the Ministry, but I suggest that some permanent section of the Ministry or office or locus of action is definitely required.
As I have already said, industry abstracts at least as much water as the water undertakers. If this large amount—and it is a very large amount; and there are a very large number of abstracters, running, so far as we can estimate, into many thousands—is left out of the Minister's specific purview, and allowed merely to rely on some chance consideration, how with thoroughness can he "promote the conservation and proper use of water resources" as he is required to do under Clause I of the Bill? In addition, he is liable to have many appeals on industrial water problems referred to him.
My industrial friends would welcome this development of machinery which would be evidence that industrial water is getting an adequate place in the Minister's organisation. At present, the industrial water users have no Minister charged positively to be interested in their problems. This is evidenced in many parts of the Bill. I have already mentioned licensing, and would close by pointing out that when minimum acceptable flows are being assessed, as outlined in Clause 19 of the Bill, industry will be affected, I believe, more than any other user, and yet industry is not officially to be consulted: they are not in any of the four specified categories that the river authorities are required to consult, and the industrialists can object only after a decision is made. I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that he will accept the duty that I have outlined.
These, then, are my critical points. If I am asked to be positive in the machinery for tackling them, my first suggestion is that, on behalf of industry, the river authorities or the Water Resources Board, as may be appropriate, should seek the assistance of the regional boards for industry which are looked after by the Board of Trade. In England and Wales there are eight of these regional boards, and they would appear to be sufficiently administratively close to the reduced number of river

1043
authorities we hope for, for them to be a successful and helpful piece of administrative machinery.
6.44 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations that have fallen from the lips of other noble Lords on the two maiden speeches we have heard to-day. I think the conception of a national water policy, beneficial to all interests, based on a number of competent authorities administering considerable areas, can be welcomed if, in the final result, the Bill works in that way. Alternatively, the proposals can be regarded with some measure of misgiving if, while trying to meet industrial and urban needs, present and future, they override or do irreparable harm to other interests of vital national importance, such as agriculture, fishing and nature conservancy. Which interpretation is given to those two alternatives depends upon the final form of the Bill and the Government's willingness in the Committee stage to consider many of the criticisms which have been put forward to-day from all sides of the House; and, of course, eventually, which of the two alternatives is achieved, the beneficial one or the one that must cause us misgivings, must depend on the Water Resources Board, the river authorities and the Minister's use and administration of the large powers that are centralised in them by the Bill. The final picture, as I see it, is of a national water network where the deficiencies of one area can be made good from the water resources of another. That seems to be one of the basic points of the Bill.
The second main point seems to be where in each area the minimum acceptable flow of every river is determined by the new river authority on which the previous interests of agriculture and fishing are halved in numbers, compared with the previous river board weight of representation. It is in the exercise of the powers in respect of both these two main provisions of the Bill by the river authorities that there is no appeal by dissatisfied minority interests, even to the Minister, much less to an uninterested independent adjudicator. That was a point my noble friend Lord Woolton dealt with with some force. The Government, I am sure, will there-
1044
fore understand if we wish to write into the terms of reference of the river authorities, as defined in Clause 4 of the Bill, some words imposing on the river authorities the duty to promote the conservation of quality and high standards of our river system—some words which we must think out later on.
Secondly, I am sure the Government will understand if we wish to see in the Bill some provisions for appeal by minority interests of nature conservancy, agriculture or fishing, against decisions of an industrial and urban-weighted river authority (which I think must be the case having regard to the form in which the representation of river authorities is defined) in their interpretation of what is the least that can flow to satisfy the requirements of Clause 19 (5), which noble Lords will find on page 18 of the Bill. I need not read them. Public health, drainage, and all the various interests are defined, but it is not the definition in the Bill that counts; it is how it is interpreted by those who have to administer it. My fear is that there will be river authorities which are overweighted with industrial and urban interests which will override these others.
Again, the Government, I am sure, will understand if we wish to write into the Bill some safeguards against one river authority, or a combination of river authorities, obtaining what I call industrial urban preponderance, a right to transfer all resources from an unwilling river authority. I cannot see in the Bill any provisions which deal with that particular possibility. Whether it could be done by making any such resisted transfer subject to the Affirmative Order procedure instead of the Negative Order procedure is something which we must consider at a later stage. I submit to your Lordships that it is a point which must be considered.
I was, I must say, rather horrified—with no offence implied—by my noble friend Lord Fleck, who seemed to me to disparage local viewpoints as being always liable to restrict national interest. My Lords, the "big boys" always talk about national interest, but it is the little ones, sometimes with local viewpoints, who really must not be ignored.
My criticism of the dangers of this Bill is that it must not become the handmaiden of the needs of industry and

1045
urban water requirements and become a "Dry Rivers Bill," in a desecrated countryside with its beauty stripped in the service of machines and residences. I would remind your Lordships that if this Bill had been law there would have been no "Manchester" debate, no speech by the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and no expression of the views of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Woolton said that the "Manchester" debate was a painful debate. It may have been painful to some noble Lords, annoying to other noble Lords, irritating to the Government or those who were promoting the particular scheme; but I think it was a glorious instance of Parliament's asserting its views and its rights; and I should very much regret if we arrived at a position where the Executive could decide such matters without Parliament having an opportunity of expression. I know that there is the Order procedure, but there certainly would not have been the "Manchester" debate in the form that it took had this Bill then been law. Does the noble Earl wish to interrupt?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I interrupt him for just one second, merely to point out that the debate was not irritating to the Government.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: It was certainly irritating to certain noble Lords, not necessarily the Government.
I think we all acknowledge that water is a raw material which has been taken for granted for far too long. I think that our water demand probably goes up on an average by 2½ per cent. per annum for domestic purposes, and on an average 5 per cent. for industrial purposes. There is, of course, plenty of water from the heavens which falls within our frontiers and plenty of water around us as we live on an island; so I think that for the foreseeable future the problem is fundamentally an economic one and not a technical one. There is no technical difficulty in pumping water from the North-West coast to the South-East coast. There is no technical difficulty in distilling fresh water from sea water; it is purely a question of economics and the question here is how best can we supply our future needs.
1046
It is well to remember that water costs are bound to rise very considerably as large capital works are required for new areas. Present water costs will rise steeply and therefore economic comparisons for future needs must not be based on present water costs but on likely future water costs. So I would ask your Lordships to turn your minds for a very few moments to what I believe is the greatest hope for the future, the economic distillation of fresh water from sea water.
My justification for bringing this matter forward on the Second Reading is that one of the responsibilities of the Water Resources Board is research. Therefore, it is within the ambit of this Bill. If we could but distil fresh water from the sea at a cost anything comparable to the cost of the new supplies our worries over domestic or industrial requirements, over agriculture and our river levels, over our entire conservation problem, would disappear. I think it is the greatest vision of the twentieth century. The possibility of an endless supply of fresh water from salt water could, I believe, alter the whole economics of the world. If the deserts of the world could be green, the economics of countries could be altered; the hungry could be fed. The expenditure of money and effort in this direction is, I believe, well worth while. It is not beyond the range of possibility.
Much, my Lords, has already been achieved, some of it here, mainly by industry, with some, but very little, Government support, and a great deal has been achieved in America largely with United States Government aid. Attention to this problem is increasing, and already in localities in arid areas the high cost is accepted; and where high cost is secondary the needs of the community can be supplied by this means.
There are three instances of which I should like to tell your Lordships. In Kuwait there is a plant to-day distilling 700,000 gallons a day. There is a little place called Luderitz, in South Africa, a small seaport in an arid area where there is a plant with a capacity of half a million gallons a day. A Glasgow firm are making a plant with a capacity of a million gallons a day in the Sinai Peninsula for an Egyptian phosphates

1047
company which as now State-owned. Also, in Guernsey, there is a plant which produces approximately half a million gallons a day and it is found to be economic having regard to the capital reservoir costs which would be entailed by ordinary orthodox means of construction. In the United States progress is enormous, and interest is much greater than it is in this country. It has been active in the United States since 1953. They have an actual department called the Office of Saline Water in the Department of the Interior, which has a Budget of no less than 11 million dollars this year for this particular project.
Yet in the United Kingdom the Central Water Advisory Sub-Committee Report, which I quoted to your Lordships in this House on December 3, 1959, dismissed the subject in one paragraph. I read the paragraph and I said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 219, col. 1173]:
"In the future the processes of de-mineralisation and distillation may be further developed to a point where it will be practicable to use more tidal water for both industrial purposes and public supplies, but at the present stage of development the cost is in general greater than that of piping water over long distances."
Of course it is. In the United States they have been working at it and they have four or five demonstration plants which are producing water today at 6s. to 7s. per thousand gallons. That figure is too high, but it is a quarter of what it cost in 1952 and they now have a study of a 50-million gallon a day plant and the cost would be at 2s. 6d. per thousand gallons. It is really becoming economic.
I was depressed at that single paragraph in the Central Water Advisory Sub-Committee's Report dismissing the project, and when I think that the Wright Brothers were laughed at in 1903 and we now have jets spanning the Atlantic, and that Marconi managed to get some signals across the Atlantic in 1902 and to-day we have television in all our homes, I am not at all impressed by the experts who say that it costs so much that we ought not to think too much about it. There is much research going on in the United States on this project. I would not for a moment suggest we should duplicate it by doing research here. But there is one practical step I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider. I have the backing of the
1048
Water Research Association and the Civil Engineering Research Council for this request. It is that we should have our saline man in the United States, so that we can really keep in close touch. It is not a case of any nationalistic rivalry; there is no politics involved: there is nothing but the benefit of mankind concerned in this. One is quite sure the laboratories of the United States would be open to our man, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will at any rate consider that suggestion which I put forward with the authority I have just quoted. I make no apologies for pressing this point. Who are we to doubt? Our task is to have faith and make endeavour in these new fields, and with the results of our faith and endeavour we may solve this water problem in a way which will revolutionise the future of this country, and I think possibly many other countries of the world.
7.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should first like to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Champion, who, in order that I may keep another engagement, has kindly agreed to change places with me in the list of speakers; and at the same time express my apologies to your Lordships for leaving after making this speech—for any discourtesy in not waiting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and the noble Earl who is to reply. Also, I think I am the first speaker from these Benches who has addressed your Lordships since we had the pleasure of hearing the very well-informed and interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Henley. On behalf of my friends here I would congratulate him and add my hopes to those already expressed that he will frequently address your Lordships. I would add my own personal congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, an old friend of mine at the Bar.
I wanted to speak in this debate principally on behalf of the amenities societies, whose interest in this subject is very well known to all your Lordships and which has in fact been very well brought out in a number of speeches this afternoon. I think I may safely say that all the societies which are collectively described as the "amenities societies" (in some ways a rather unfortunate

1049
phrase but one which has come into vogue) welcome in principle this Bill and the national water policy which it lays down. I think every speaker this afternoon has gone as far as that, although the speeches added together come to a considerable volume of criticism, because after welcoming the principle, almost every speaker has had something critical to say. I am afraid that I shall be one of the critics.
Of course, I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin in welcoming the amenities clause, Clause 93, and I agree with him that nevertheless this clause is really not strong enough. It is a clause which we succeeded in getting into the Electricity Act in 1957 pretty well in exactly the same terms, and it has not in fact proved strong enough. I should like to see this clause strengthened so that the point which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye in his very interesting speech might be given effect to and this question of saline waters be gone into before decisions are made to take water from lakes like Ullswater, to which he and the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, referred. All this clause says is that natural beauty must be taken into account. That is not very strong. At Trawsfynydd, in North Wales, they took it into account and decided that natural beauty must go by the board in the interests of a very large power station. I am afraid that is likely to happen, because to a water engineer the most beautiful thing in the world is a large expanse of water in a reservoir. It is very natural; but I think that if he is not to give reign to his love of natural beauty of that sort we need in the Bill a stronger clause than this.
Actually I attach more importance to Clause 67 (3), which has not been underlined to quite the same extent. That is the one which in effect makes planning permission necessary in regard to developments, which I take it means physical developments. I think it is very unfortunate that, so far as I can see, apart from this particular subsection, there is practically no reference in this Bill to the importance of planning in regard to this matter. The wider aspects of planing, which I should have thought were very closely bound up with the whole of this water development business, seem to be pretty well ignored, and I under-
1050
stand that none of the planning boards, the National Parks or planning authorities has even been brought into consultation with the Ministry on matters of this kind, which I think is very unfortunate. On the face of it, it looks as if it might be hamhandedness, but one wonders whether there is not something more behind it. I hope not. It is very important, particularly in the National Parks areas, that the interests of the National Parks should be borne in mind, and how can that be better done than by bringing the National Parks' authorities into consultation at a very early stage, which so far as I can see has not been done.
The Bill empowers the new river authorities to permit by licence extraction or impounding of inland waters—and this is a point made by more than one speaker—and unless the Minister exercises his power under Clause 38 to call in any particular application or class of applications for his own decision, it appears that the licence may be granted by the river authority without any reference to the Minister whatever. Section 26 of the 1945 Act, which has up to the present time regulated this matter, is repealed, so that there appears to be no way out of this unless we amend the Bill. If the water authority refuses a licence the applicant has a right of appeal to the Minister, but if they grant a licence objectors have no such appeal. I would underline what has been said by others earlier in the debate. It would be most unfortunate if this goes through and produces the sort of situation which existed in the early days of planning, which after a very great deal of trouble has substantially been put right. If we do this, we are making a mistake which was made in the past and which led to a great deal of trouble.
It is important to note that, although the abstraction and impounding of water as such will be directly under the licensing control of the river boards, planning permission will still be required for any works which may be involved, and in this connection the existing safeguards will remain in force. Following from this, I Chink one of the important duties of the river boards is to survey their rivers and, under Clause 19, to prescribe minimum acceptable flows. I do not think I have heard this point made

1051
this afternoon. That, therefore, will be one of the principal criteria for the authorities in deciding what licences are to be granted for the purpose of abstracting the water. Clause 19 (5) provides that the flow which is to be prescribed in this sort of way should be
"… the minimum… needed for safeguarding the public health and for meeting the requirements of existing lawful uses of the inland water, whether for agriculture"—
I hope that your Lordships will notice the particular interests which are singled out—
"fishing, industry, navigation, water supply or other purposes and the requirements of land drainage."
It is noteworthy that the amenities factor is omitted from this list, which leads me to suppose that this earlier clause about amenities is really put in as a matter of form, and that the officials who were responsibile for getting out this Bill really did not have the interests of amenity much at heart.
Again in the composition of the river authorities, which, as your Lordships have heard, is dealt with in Clauses 6 to 8, there is no sort of provision for the amenities interests. All sorts of other interests are provided for, but amenities are nor; nor are the local planning authority brought in here, as they might very well have been if the Ministry had had these matters in view in the way which I submit to your Lordships they ought to have done. County councils and county borough councils will be represented, but the national parks, where the joint planning authorities or joint planning boards have been set up for the express purpose of dealing with the position, are not to be represented at all. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a serious weakness in the Bill as it stands. So far as amenity interests are concerned, I suggest that these could be most conveniently represented by providing, on the lines of an interesting section which was put into the New Forest Act in 1949, that one or two members of each river authority should be appointed
"by such body of persons as may be designated by the Minister as being specially concerned with the preservation of the amenities of the countryside."
I hope that the noble Earl will give consideration to that suggestion, and will
1052
see, when we come to the Committee stage, whether he can help us to get something of that sort into the Bill.
Exactly the same sort of point arises in connection with the composition of the Water Resources Board. Again, there is no sort of provision here for the representation of interests. I was most interested in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, that the Nature Conservancy ought to be brought in. They are greatly interested in this question, just as much as are the amenities interests. I would remind the noble Earl who is to reply that in the Electricity Act it was provided that, in effect, there should be an amenities representation on the Central Electricity Board. That most distinguished architect, Sir William Holford, was appointed, and he has undoubtedly performed valuable service in his position on the Electricity Authority. I would suggest to the noble Earl, if he can see his way to doing it, that it would be most useful either to have something in the Bill itself or, at any rate, to have an undertaking that the National Parks Commission, whose Chairman I am happy to see is with us, will be brought into this matter. Because I am quite sure that if the Minister would undertake to consult them in making at any rate one of the appointments to this Resources Board, that would be a most valuable step.
I am also far from clear on the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, as to how far this Bill affects the existing procedure of Private Bill legislation in connection with water undertakings. He assumed that it swept it aside. That was also my own first impression, but looking at the Bill again I am not sure that I am right. In fact, I wrote a little note to the noble Earl to ask him whether he would deal with this particular point—is Private Bill legislation procedure abolished? In other words, will the water undertaker in future have to apply to the new river authorities and not bring a Private Bill before Parliament?
To take the concrete case which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, what will be the position if Manchester attempt to revive their Bill, as I have seen it stated in the newspapers they propose to do?

1053
Can they do so, or will they be told that they have to apply under the procedure of this Bill?—I am assuming, in posing that question, that this Bill is in operation. In any event, can they take the alternative of using this procedure, which eventually would mean that the decision would be given by the Minister and not by Parliament? That I suggest, just as did the noble Lord, is an important matter. One remembers the sort of attitude which was taken up by the Ministry at the time of the Ullswater debate. If this new procedure had been in operation and had been obligatory then, it would have been the "kiss of death" for Ullswater. This is a situation which we in the amenities movement are anxious to avoid.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, pointed out, if the Private Bill procedure is abolished, it means, as the Bill stands, that Parliamentary control over these matters will be lost. I was glad to hear him suggest that it might be possible to put down some Amendments which would require that an Affirmative Resolution should be passed by Parliament before, at any rate in regard to national parks, undertakings which were going to have a great deal of effect on, and possibly damage, the beauties of the Lakes, and of the Dales, could be brought into effect I think that is a matter of the greatest importance, and I hope that we shall be able to secure safeguards when the Committee stage is reached.
That brings me to my final point, which is, in a sense, a Committee point because it is dealing now with a particular area. And your Lordships may not be surprised to hear, after what I have said, that that area is the Lake District. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, when he introduced the Bill, that the Cumberland River Board was to be amalgamated with Lancashire. That appears in the First Schedule to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye is absolutely right in saying that this means that we have the urban interests predominating.
As I understand it (although it does not appear clear from the Bill itself), it means that Cumberland and Westmorland will get about two representatives to stand up to about fourteen representatives from urban Lancashire. The
1054
people who are using the water in industry are given an absolute dominance over the people in the Lake District who are trying to defend Ullswater and the other Lakes against predatory inroads by the Manchester water undertaking and all the other undertakings who are now brought in under this plan. With the dominance which this Bill gives to the new combined Cumberland-Lancashire water authority the unfortunate people in the Lake District will have to defend themselves not only against the might of Manchester but also against the might of most of South Lancashire; and that seems to me to be an uphill task. I hope that when the time comes it may be possible to do something to safeguard the situation.
I understand that the Minister has really not given county authorities or, as I said before, the joint planning board, or indeed the Cumberland River Board opportunities for consultation. Your Lordships may have seen in The Times this morning, a most useful letter from the chairman of the Cumberland River Board setting out the position very clearly from his point of view. That is a Board which has done most valuable work, under the efficient chairmanship of Mr. Thompson, who signed the letter. But as I understand it, none of these authorities was brought into consultation with the Ministry before this Bill was tabled in Parliament. This seems to me to be altogether wrong. They themselves feel that a reasonable area would include the whole of the Lake District, together with the Lune Valley and the area depending on the Lune which is peripheral to the Lake District, and that the Ribble and the urban part of South Lancashire should go in with the Mersey. Since the latter is already an urbanised district the two would fit well together.
My Lords, in closing I should like to emphasise the fact that the River Boards Association itself has emphasised to the Minister the need for full consultation (which has not occurred in this case), and for paying some attention to local feeling about these matters. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said about this, because local feeling in the Lake District is very strong. They have not really cooled off, so to speak, after the attempts of Manchester to steal Ullswater from

1055
them. After the protestations made by the noble Earl—I have no doubt very genuinely—during the Ullswater debate, I feel that to put something forward which is against the interests of the Lake District is really heaping coals on the fire. I can assure him that it is going to make it more difficult to persuade people that the Government are earnestly attempting to find a way out which will preserve the beauties of the Lake District, particularly Ullswater Lake, which was in such danger last spring.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, since the noble Lord has informed me he will not be able to be in the Chamber when I come to reply, may I interrupt him for a moment? I do so because I am at the moment chairing a conference which is discussing this very matter of Manchester's water supply. At that conference, despite what the noble Lord has been saying, the fullest co-operation has been given by everybody concerned, not only on the Manchester side but also on the Lake District side; and I do not think the tone of the noble Lord's comments at this particular stage are necessarily very helpful.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. Of course these consultations were going on before this Bill was published. The Bill has been published for only a very short time, and I think that he will find it will make a great deal of difference. I have had trunk calls from the people with whom he is in consultation—county clerks, Cumberland, Westmorland, chairmen of river boards. All these people who have been attempting to work with him in order to find a solution to this problem have been put off by what I have described earlier on as the ham-handed conduct, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, of the officials who have been organising this Bill. It is really most unfortunate that this atmosphere should have been established in this way.
EARL JELLICOE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I cannot permit him to attack officials who cannot defend themselves. I do think that it is unfair to use expressions like "ham-handed conduct of officials".
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I shall try to get back from my engagement to hear the noble Earl's reply, because I shall be interested to hear his explanation as to why these authorities have not been brought into consultation in any way on this matter. We were all very glad to hear that the noble Earl had agreed to chair this conference, because we know that so far as he himself is concerned he is on our side—so far as he can be. But those of us who have had the experience of working in the sort of position the noble Earl occupies know how difficult it is to persuade the officials to take the point of view of the Parliamentarian. The whole history of this country over the last years has been a case of Whitehall grasping from Westminster, and—with great respect to the noble Earl—this Bill is a very good example of what has been going on.
I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time. I hope that, in his reply, the noble Earl will be able to give me some assurances in regard to the very important matters which I have put before you tonight.
7.26 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill and should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on introducing it this Session, because it is urgently needed. My noble friend, Lord Hastings, took us through the clauses of the Bill with great clarity, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it follows, broadly speaking, the recommendations of the White Paper on Water Conservation which was published in April this year. Such differences as there are in the Bill from the White Paper in my opinion are improvements; but, from the point of view of industry, I think we can still make some improvements in the Bill while it is going through this House.
The first point I should like to make concerns the duties of the Minister in Clause 1. It seems to me that if the problems of industry are to have proper consideration, as other noble Lords have said, the technical staff of the Ministry need augmenting. As the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, has pointed out, in this Bill industry has no parent Minister. Under Clause 1, subsection (2), "the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the

1057
Minister of Housing and Local Government, acting jointly. So if industry has no Minister to look after it, let us at least be sure that the Water Resources Board has a properly qualified staff to deal with the problems of industry.
I suggest that the position of canals needs clarification. Canals would appear to fall within the definition of "water resources" in Clause 2 of this Bill. Yet the abstraction of water from inland waterways is governed by Section 63 of the Transport Act, 1962. I should be grateful if we could have some clarification from the Minister as to whether the provisions of this Bill or the Transport Act prevail in respect of canals.
I should like to say a word about the river authorities which are to be established as soon as practicable after the passing of the Act. As has been pointed out, Schedule 1 of the Bill gives a list of 26 river authorities which does not include the Thames and Greater London areas. I suggest that if the proposals for conservation in this Bill are to be effective, there must be a very simple procedure for transferring water from one river basin to another. The more river authorities you have, the more opposition you will get to proposals to transfer from wet basins and the more scrambling will there be by the dry basins for new sources of supply. In my view few authorities, properly grouped, will provide a much more efficient conservation machine. Also, the Water Resources Board would be much more effective, and would need a much smaller staff, if the number of river authorities with which it had to deal was small. It is obvious that the conservancy load on each river authority is going to be very susbtantial.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on May 23 my noble friend Lord Jellicoe emphasised that conservation is not just an extra item but a new conception, and demands a thorough-going reappraisal. He also said that the new authorities will not be just the existing river boards writ large. Now, my Lords, I feel sure that the staff which will be needed by 27 river authorities to do the job properly will not be available. The Federation of British Industries has devoted a great deal of time to studying this question of the size and grouping of river authorities, and it has reached the conclusion that 14 would be a
1058
maximum. So I suggest that the Minister should reconsider this question of grouping and deal with it by order after the Bill has received the Royal Assent.
Clause 6 lays down that one or more members of the river authority should be appointed by the Minister
"as being qualified in respect of industry other than agriculture."
When we consider the constitution of the river authority, we should remember that industry is the largest single class of water user. Industry is more concerned with water conservation than is any other group, except possibly the water undertakers themselves. It should be remembered that industrial abstracters will be the largest group of licence holders in many or most of the areas of the river authorities. Yet on the board of 21 to 31 members of a river authority, industry is to have only one or more members appointed by the Minister. Surely, the basis of membership of river authorities should bear some relation to the use of water and the financial contribution to the authority. I am most anxious that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will deal with this point. I do not think it should take him by surprise, because I feel sure he has read the letter in The Times of November 20 from Mr. Hopthrow, who was a member of the Proudman Sub-Committee. Mr. Hopthrow strongly supports ray argument, and goes so far as to say that:
"The Proudman Committee's recommendations were sound, the Bill, which is down for … reading in the House of Lords… is not."
My Lords, I am glad to see that this Bill gives the Water Resources Board a much more positive character. This is a welcome improvement. In the debate we had in this House in May of this year, I and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I remember, suggested that the central authority mentioned in the Government White Paper needed strengthening. But I think there is still a weakness. The duties of the Water Resources Board are concerned only with certain aspects of conservation and not with land drainage, flood control and the prevention of pollution, which are an essential part of a comprehensive conservation policy. I suggest that to deny the Water Resources Board any functions connected with pollution and flood control is completely at

1059
variance with the statement of my noble friend, Lord Jellicoe, in this House on May 23 when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240, Cols. 1040–1041]:
"we envisage the proposed central authority as being the expert body responsible for seeing that there is a broad and consistent approach to water conservation and for planning and co-ordinating… measures on the national scale."
My Lords, I have touched on some of the points which are worrying industry, but there are quite a few more, such as licensing, and I know that later in the debate my noble friend Lord Merrivale is going to deal with some of them.
7.35 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I count it as a privilege to have the opportunity this afternoon of joining those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Ilford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on their wholly admirable speeches. I am sure that we shall look forward to further contributions from the noble Lords. I was very interested, too, in the contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made, regarding the distillation of fresh water from sea water. Perhaps I may add to the illustrations that he gave, that Israel has recently entered into a contract with a Canadian firm in order to carry out that type of work. In addition, if my memory serves me correctly, a sub-committee of the United Nations Organisation recently called attention in a report to the very same matter as being of great importance, particularly in time of war. I mention those things because the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, brought them into his speech.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, so lucidly explained in introducing this measure, the Bill authorises an entirely new system of managing and controlling the water resources of England and Wales. The existing river boards are to be dissolved and replaced by river authorities with much more extensive powers. In addition, a new central authority is to be set up with advisory and supervisory functions. These proposals, it seems to me, are a recognition of the growing importance of our water resources and rivers to our national economy. But while we recognise that, I think one should put on record the excellent work which has been accom-
1060
plished by the river boards since 1948. Between 1951 and 1962 schemes involving a capital expenditure of nearly £50 million have been carried out by river boards in the land drainage field alone, and this work has been accomplished because, since 1948, the river boards have built up highly competent technical and administrative staffs. These staffs too, have been admirably assisted by the lay members of the river boards.
Mention should also be made of the work of the River Boards' Association, in which I assume I have to declare an interest, as I have the honour of being one of its vice-presidents, as have other noble Lords. In no small measure this Association has helped the work of the river boards. By regular meetings of the technical staffs for discussion of the many problems arising in the day-to-day work of the river boards, and with the co-operation of the lay members of the boards, the Association has been able to gather the collected views of its members for the consideration of the Ministry, not only in connection with this Bill but on many other problems.
My Lords, there was a most informative symposium organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers at the end of last month, when a number of most interesting technical and other papers were discussed, some contributed by officers of river boards. To give one example, the paper of Mr. Nixon, chief engineer of the Trent River Board, on "Flood Regulation and River Training in England and Wales", while giving many instances of this work, included some fascinating pictures of completed schemes. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to give the concluding words of this paper:
"Much has been achieved by river boards since they were set up following the River Boards Act of 1948. Nevertheless, the proposed new river authorities will inherit many flood problems and more will arise from time to time. It is hoped that the new authorities will be given sufficient flexibility to enable them to deal with these problems effectively within the framework of an integrated development plan of their area."
My Lords, the Bill, as previously indicated, will set up a new Water Resources Board on a day appointed by Order made by the Minister, this Board to be charged with the duty of advising the new river authorities as to the performance of their functions and of advising

1061
the Minister as to the performance of his functions in relation to a national water policy. The Board's duty, as further explained in Clause 12 (3), can be summarised as including a general and continuous review of the water resources position; the initiation of desirable action by giving notice or making representations to the Minister and river authorities; advising, encouraging and assisting the river authorities; and assembling and publishing information as to actual and prospective water resources and demand. The Board will be able to carry out research—a very important point—and to give technical assistance to river authorities. Furthermore, Part III of the Bill, which deals with the assessment of water resources and related matters, imposes certain express duties and functions on river authorities which to a large extent are to be subject to the detailed supervision of the Water Resources Board.
The Board is to consist of not more than seven members, all to be appointed by the Minister, and the Minister is not required to have regard to any particular qualifications. There is provision for the members to be paid and to have pension rights, of course. But I submit that, as will be seen, the functions of this new Board are of a kind which might well lead the Board to seek the services of employees of existing river boards. There is, however, no provision in the Bill for the transfer of any employees of existing river boards to the Water Resources Board, and the only provision with regard to the appointment of employees by the new board is contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5.
This paragraph empowers the Minister to appoint officers and servants to such number as the Minister—that is, the Minister of Housing and Local Government—may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine; and empowers the Minister to pay these employees such salary or other remuneration as he may, again with the consent of the Treasury, determine, and such reasonable allowances as may be so determined for expenses properly incurred in the performance of the employee's duties. As I read it, the whole of the expenses of the Water Resources Board are to be met out of the Vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. At a later stage it may be necessary to con-
1062
sider whether any special provision, including superannuation rights, should be given to cover the position of any employees of river boards who are offered employment by the Water Resources Board.
To pass now to the position of the staff at present employed by the river boards, Clause 86 confers on the two Ministers power to make regulations as to registration of title—and I quote:
"… and for any other matters for which provision appears to the Ministers to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing the effective transfer of any assets"
to a river authority under Clause 85. It would, of course, be possible for regulations of this kind to deal with matters affecting the situations or duties of employees. But on this point, perhaps, we may have some clarification at a later stage in the Bill.
The remaining matter which arises in connection with the transfer of employees to the river authorities is compensation. Clause 90 (1) requires the two Ministers, by regulation made by statutory instrument and subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, to
"make provision requiring the payment by such river authority as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations, subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be so prescribed, of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or but for any national service of theirs"—
that is, service in the armed forces or other employment prescribed by regulations—
"would be, the holders of any such position place or employment as may be so prescribed who suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, in consequence of any of the provisions of section 5 or this Part of this Act."
Part IX of the Bill includes the transfer provisions. My Lords, it is, in the usual way, provided that different regulations may be made in relation to different classes of persons, and that such regulations may be so framed as to have effect from a date earlier than their making, provided that this retrospective effect is not to place any person other than a river authority in a worse position than that in which he would have been if the regulations had not been retrospective.
To pass now to Clause 90 (2), regulations under this clause may include provision as to the manner in which, and

1063
the person to whom, any claim for compensation is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations. These provisions in general follow a usual pattern. There arc two points, however, which occur to me in relation to subsection (1). The first is that the compensation provisions of this Bill are required, in relation to each authority, for all employees of the river boards, or boards which will be replaced by that authority. But there may be instances where some local government officers may be involved in the new set-up, and I am sure it would not be the desire of the Minister that they should suffer. I should like at some later stage to raise this point so that we can have the necessary explanation by the officials of the Ministry.
Secondly, the corresponding provision in the Transport Act, 1962, Section 81 (1) requires the regulations to cover the payment of compensation to persons who suffer loss or diminution of pension rights or whose position is worsened by the reorganisation under that Act. Neither of these points is covered in the present Bill and, while reference to pension rights may be unnecessary, it might well be helpful to include a reference to persons whose position is worsened as a result of the transfer. I need hardly say I trust and hope that these regulations, when they are framed and before they are issued, Will be the subject of consultation between the Ministry and the associations representing the staff involved in the changes. It may be desirable to include an express provision that nothing in Clause 90 of the Bill is to be construed as enabling regulations to be made prejudicing the rights of any person under Section 30 of the River Boards Act, 1948, or Section 18 (6) of the Land Drainage Act, 1961. Similar provision was made in Section 81 (10) of the Transport Act, 1962.
As to the proposed grouping of river boards, it may be necessary during the Committee stage to consider the grouping in more detail, on its merits, and particularly the proposed grouping in the North-West area which earlier has been the subject of some voluminous communications to Members of your Lordships' House. In the course of the debate various opinions have been
1064
expressed in regard to the representation given to local authorities. I have not been able, and I do not know whether anybody else has, to assess the contribution to be made by local authorities to the work of the new river authorities. I can only speak of my experience as a member of a catchment board (the River Roding Catchment Board)—it is a long time ago—when, if my memory is correct, the bulk of the money for the work of the river board was supplied by precept on the councils concerned, and this was frequently the subject of adverse criticism by the chairmen of the respective financial committees of the councils involved. While I think the question of the number of local government representatives might be gone into at a further stage, I feel that a bare majority is hardly sufficient, if my calculation that the local authorities on precept will supply the bulk of the money turns out to be accurate.
My final point is this. I personally welcome this Bill, so far as one is able to grasp its many complicated details—I would mention in passing that The Times newspaper, commenting on the Bill, said it should have a fair trial—but in practice it may well lead to difficulty and frustration. I hope we shall approach the provisions of the Bill in no Party spirit but with a desire to make it an even more effective measure to ensure that our great national assets of water resources and rivers are fully utilised and, above all, properly conserved.
7.55 p.m.
THE Earl OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, before I begin I must declare I have a certain interest in water supplies, because I am a director of a statutory water company which operates in Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire. I was also a member of the Proudman Committee and signed the Minority Report. I am delighted that the noble Earl should be steering this Bill through the House. He showed tremendous ability and flexibility last May when he replied to the Motion on a National Water Policy, and I must congratulate him on the production of this Water Resources Bill and on his producing it so quickly. To my mind, the Bill incorporates all the important points that have been developed from the Proudman Report, the Government White Paper, and the debate on the White Paper last

1065
May, and I am quite certain in my mind that the scheme propounded can be made to work. What is really required is the good will and efficiency of all those concerned up and down the line of water resources.
To my mind, the key to the new structure is the Water Resources Board to be set up to advise the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the river authorities on water conservation matters and to stimulate schemes for the transfer of water where necessary. I would say that the new river authorities will be thoroughly capable of looking after affairs in their own territories and of doing whatever may be necessary, within the limits of the finances available, both to drain land and to conserve water. Historically, it is fair to say that bodies of this sort in their own localities have ideas, and very good ideas, and plans, which far outstrip the resources available to them. One might almost argue that there is an automatic Parkinson's Law in the technical field.
At this point I should like to mention the constitution of the river authorities and, as one of those who signed the Minority Report of the Proudman Committee, I am extremely well pleased with it. But the matter of supreme importance—and I feel it cannot be overemphasised—is that the members should fully appreciate the extent of their responsibilities. Possibly some of the newly-appointed members will have to go out of their way to make themselves fully conversant and knowledgeable in their duties. This would probably apply mainly to some of the members of the constituent councils who, before election, may have had little or no experience of this sort of work. I may add here, on this important note of efficiency, that I have heard fears expressed that possibly a few of the existing river board staff appeared to be—what shall I say?—not quite adequate even for their present duties. With the additional responsibilities and the ever-growing importance of water, this fear, I think, may become very real, but I am sure that I can ask the noble Earl to see that an ever-watching eye is kept on all-round efficiency.
There is again a certain nervousness that river authorities may not take sufficient heed of the re-
1066
quirements of the public water suppliers; for certainly the public water suppliers must be able to carry out their obligations without a hitch. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, dealt with this aspect very thoroughly, and I will not go into it again. I appreciate that Clause 14 (1) (b) refers to it. Obviously, the Water Resources Board have an important duty to watch this matter continuously and with great vigilance to see that the river authorities play their part.
The real problem, surely, lies not only in what is done within a locality to solve the problems of that locality but also in whether there are local supplies of water which enable the river authority to meet all demands made upon it for supplies. In many cases this is not going to be easy. Particularly must this be true of the drier parts of the country. Therefore the question of the transfer of water becomes an essential and major problem. Everyone is agreed that if all the water we have in this country could be properly conserved, we should never have the slightest danger of a shortage; but much of it runs to waste in the plentiful times of the year, and consequently shortages emerge in the dry spells.
The problems of the transfer of water are not, I believe, as one noble Lord said, the problems of short distances, and this is where the Water Resources Board must think and plan in a big way for the country as a whole. Under Clause 13 (1), the constitution of the Water Resources Board shall not be more than seven members appointed by the Minister. This small number would, I believe, make for administrative efficiency, and that must be all-important, in view of the suggested duties of the Board. I know that there have been ideas that the Water Resources Board should be more representative, but I would say that the river authorities themselves are fully representative, particularly when one remembers that the Third Schedule provides for the making of regulations to set up sub-committees which (apart from the finance subcommittee) may include a number, not exceeding one-third of the total number of members of the committee, of persons who are not members of the river authority.

1067
The Water Resources Board, by its terms of reference—namely, to advise—would seem to have little power. Nevertheless, it must be sufficiently forceful in character to act as a catalyst to ensure the production of a broad national policy and the development of a plan of operations looking well into the future. If it is to be an advisory board of this nature, then I would say that its servicing and staffing will be a matter of prime importance. Indeed, I wonder whether, in the field of water conservance and supply, this Board might not well fill the sort of position which seems to be intended for "Neddy" in the national economic field. "Neddy" seems to have no lack of high-powered officials to support it. In the event of a river authority's refusing direction from the Water Resources Board, the Water Resources Board reports the situation to the Minister, and the Minister then decides his course of action. Other noble Lords have cast doubt on this procedure, but it seems to me to be truly in line with the general spirit of the country.
In order to carry out the planning duties I have referred to—that is, of encouraging and assisting the river authorities in the formulation of such plans as would seem necessary—the Board has powers to direct and collect information from river authorities. And I am glad to see that, in Clause 14 (2), a time factor is incorporated in the Bill; that is, that river authorities have to make their full reports at intervals of not more than seven years. Also, there is obviously intended to be little waste of time at the start, for the new river authorities are expected to submit hydro-metric schemes within a rather short time, and minimum acceptable flows and charging schemes as soon as possible thereafter. A point that I wish to stress is that minimum flows are of the utmost importance for land drainage and fisheries. Hence I should have thought that the Minister responsible for them—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—must be included for consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Minister of Transport, under the Bill, is quite rightly included where there are problems of navigation.
Following on from this, and to make full use of the important and wide in-
1068
formation which the Water Resources Board will be collecting, the Board must be in close touch with all the research that is going on. I am glad to see that the Board have powers to carry out research and powers to direct river authorities to collect facts and carry out experimental work in the field. Under Clause 94, they are able to place the services of any of their officers at the disposal of a river authority. I think that that is an extremely good idea. In addition, the Hydrological Research Committee will be continuing their excellent work, in conjunction with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Here I should like to suggest (and I regard it as most important) that the Water Resources Board should have a representative on the Hydrological Research Committee. This would help to avoid duplication in research, and the Board would be more easily able to identify any gap in research and to guide research in the direction where it is most needed.
The Government must, of course, make it clear that every effort should be made to find new economic methods of increasing our water resources, by such methods as artificial recharging of underground aquifiers or by distilling from the sea, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I agree with him that we may have great success on these lines in possibly the not too distant future, so I hope that a certain amount of money will be made available for this kind of research. Finally, my Lords, I have no doubt that the scheme set out in the Bill, with possibly a few amendments, can be made to work, and to work efficiently. And it is essential, for the prosperity of this country, that this should be so.
8.10 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I would join the noble Earl in congratulating the Government on the presentation of this Bill within a comparatively short time of the publication of the Proudman Report. Certainly a much shorter time has been taken by the Government in this regard that was taken by them to act on another of the Central Advisory Water Committee's Report—namely, the Heneage Report, published in 1951. The Land Drainage Bill which flowed from it was presented to another

1069
place in 1960—a period of gestation of nine years. Even the elephant is not as tardy as that. But here we have a period of gestation of nine months—a period that I can understand—and this has produced a very weighty and useful baby. On the whole, I would say that this is a very good Bill, which I think we shall be able to improve on the Committee stage. That is always the hope of the Opposition and, of course, of Members of Parliament.
Like my noble friend Lord Silkin, I must admit to being a little worried about the overlapping that will be created as a result of giving to the Water Resources Board functions which are very similar to those of the Central Advisory Water Committee and the Welsh Advisory Water Committee. One is bound to wonder if it is wise to give differing bodies much the same task. Paragraph 54 of the White Paper tells me that nothing in these proposals will affect the continuance of the Central Advisory Water Committee. So it is clear that, although the Committee will have functions Which overlap those given in this Bill to the Water Resources Board, the Central Advisory Water Committee will remain in being with the same terms of reference.
However, there seems to be an element of doubt about the functions of the Welsh Advisory Water Committee after this Bill becomes an Act, because we are told in the same White Paper that the Minister will consult with the Water Resources Board and the Welsh Advisory Committee on the question of their respective functions. If there is a case for such a consultation, surely it must apply equally to the Central Advisory Water Committee. This paragraph (and I mention it here because clearly we shall not have a chance of talking about this aspect of it on the Committee stage of the Bill) seems to me to place the future of the Welsh Advisory Water Committee in some jeopardy. I would advise the Minister to tread warily here and mot to do anything which would make Wales feel that she is being placed in an inferior position as a possible result of his actions or of the advice of the Water Resources Board.
Wales is one of the parts of this island with an exportable surplus of water, and
1070
the less that is done to exacerbate feeling in this matter, the better for everyone concerned. Welsh feeling can easily be exacerbated, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, on this matter of the export of water. Wales, rightly I think, tends to say, "Bring some of the industries to us rather than take our waiter to them." And there is a lot in that when we look at the crazy build-up of industry and population in the South-East corner of this island.
Clause 13 deals with the constitution of the Water Resources Board, but there is nothing in this clause which tells us what sort of people they are to be. The White Paper said that they are to have a wide range of professional and technical experience and be drawn from England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, rightly stressed the importance of the personnel of the Board. I must say that I should like to see something of this in the Bill, particularly something making it obligatory on the Minister to appoint one or more Welsh members to the Board. A few words in a White Paper is nothing like so binding or so satisfactory as the appropriate words in am Act of Parliament. This is one of the things to which I hope to return when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
On the financial provisions of the Bill, I am very much concerned at the failure of the Government to make any provision for Exchequer assistance for the river authorities, excepting in drainage matters, and that, of course, is a continuation of the assistance already existing under other Acts. As I understand it, the main sources of income for water conservation purposes will be from licences, charges for water extracted and from precepting upon local authorities in their respective areas, the latter to meet any deficiences of expenditure incurred in water conservation. It seems to me that that income might well be sufficient to enable the river authority to carry out the necessary works for the requirements of its own area. But I do not think we can hope to meet the future requirements of this country on a river authority area basis.
It is the case (the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, referred to this) that recently there was a conference of civil engineers, and

1071
at that conference Dr. Buchan succinctly told the civil engineers:
"Nature frequently delivers the water either in the wrong place or at the wrong time. Sometimes too little is delivered, sometimes too much. One way of correcting this uneven distribution would be to make a substantial increase in surface reservoir capacity, particularly in areas of high rainfall and adjacent to great rivers. Then an extension of the pipeline system would be necessary to dispatch the water to places with a high demand and low rainfall."
As I see it, that means the construction of great reservoirs in one river authority's area for the transfer of the water to the area of another. Indeed, the Minister is required by Clause 1 of the Bill to formulate
"a national policy relating to water, to include such measures as he may consider necessary or expedient for augmenting the water resources of areas in England and Wales, for redistributing water resources in any such area or for transferring water resources from one such area to another."
In the same clause he is given powers of control and direction to ensure that his policy is effectively executed. As I understand the intention, it is to solve the problem of meeting the future water requirements of this country. It is not the Government's intention that we shall go on living on a hand-to-mouth basis, but rather that the preparations should be made now to meet the country's estimated requirements of ten to twenty years hence.
Do the Government really feel that they will be in a position to direct, say, the Wye or the Gwynedd authorities, areas of high rainfall, to execute great conservation works now in order that in a few years' time they might be able to sell the water to the Midlands? I mention those authorities merely by way of illustration, because they are poor authorities. The Gwynedd Authority, for example, covers the whole of some and part of others of five counties, yet the total rateable value upon which it may draw is only £2,600,000. Obviously, such an authority is not going to embark on great conservation works unless it is given the finance to enable it to do it. If that sort of authority is going to concern itself only with the fiddling little powers of licences and compensation water and the like, we are not going to meet the challenge of the future water requirements of this country.
The Proudman Report recognised these difficulties and said in paragraph 147:
"We also think that, in view of the importance of water in the national economy, circumstances may arise in which it would be in the national interest to make financial assistance available from Exchequer funds."
The Government have ignored this very sound advice of a knowledgeable Committee. If there is a case—and of course there is—for Government grants for land drainage, there appears to me to be an infinitely stronger case for grants for water conservation. Drainage is important, but the very life of this country in twenty years' time might depend on the actions taken to ensure that there is a sufficient water supply for industry and for the population. This Bill provides the necessary alternative administrative machinery for water conservation. But the Government, it seems to me, must ensure the means to enable the Water Resources Board, and particularly the river authorities, to carry out this task which we in this House to-day are beginning to place upon them—namely, to ensure that, by our conservation works to-day, in twenty years' time we shall not be bothered talking about the water problem of this country.
8.23 p.m.
THE Earl OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, we have had the most wonderful set of speeches, and one can certainly say that the various points have been fully dealt with. At this hour I will not try to say what has been better said, and I have only two points. We may have felt that the balance of opinion is for larger packets. I am very much impressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I am quite sure that we have to get the thing going, and not worry whether a grant cannot come because it is not a national concern but is only the concern of those who are immediately going to benefit. That also cannot apply to the amalgamations of larger local authorities and counties. Anything to do with Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool or any of the great conurbations is much more than local. It cannot be considered locally. What you do there reflects on the whole economy of the country.
I dislike very much reading what happens to an authority which might have felt unwilling to incur for its ratepayers burdens which they did not feel

1073
able to support, and that, therefore, if they sit inert and do nothing, they are liable to fall foul of the Minister and to be put in default with all the other penalties in those relevant sections. I do not think that it is at all possible. In fact, I consider that the whole concept is to marry the richer ox more powerful areas with weaker areas, and those who have water to spare with those who need waiter. Some Members of this House will say, "Of course, we have to get the wet bobs to help the dry bobs." That is what the whole thing is about. If we try to make these small packets, we shall run on the rocks and there will be an uneven advance. Disappointed little chaps who do nothing will hang back and perhaps spoil the pattern for their neighbours. They will not be taken forward with the other more powerful and more able authorities.
That is why Cumberland is a very great example, provided we can save the amenity there, provided we can make something of a balance so that fellows from Cumberland and Westmorland do not feel overburdened the whole time in the presence of their more numerous and influential co-members, and also provided the Minister can explain what compensation, not necessarily in money but in benefits, for those more rural counties could come out of their co-operation with Lancashire. It worries me very much to think that this enormous territory from the Esk down to Wigan can feel hurt in their feelings by being treated as poor relations and not recognised as the givers of the water that the richer people want.
There is only one other point with which I will trouble your Lordships, and perhaps the noble Earl will help me. We have heard over and over again the principle enunciated that all water management should come within the territory of one authority. Is that lip service? Is there a diarchy? If the noble Earl will answer that, I shall be grateful. It seems to me that within our territories there is a second authority. I have read the subject carefully, but I may have misread it. It seems to me that there are three classes of canals. I have read the Bowes Report backwards. There is only one class that is viable, and that is for the wider boats leading down to the ports.
1074
I have put a map just inside the door of the Royal Gallery showing very interestingly the virus pattern spreading throughout England of that great canal network which is only partly viable now. I have had it there for people to see how the inland waterways, under the Ministry of Transport, are inside ourselves as a host. I do not think they should share our gathering grounds if they cannot use them and we want them. They should not use the narrow canals which we could use as waterways. They gain £500,000 a year from selling water to the factories on their banks. That money does not really belong to them. We are breaking so much of the Common Law, and taking new departures, that I am sure we could put that right if it were thought more equitable. That £500,000 should come to us, and also the £140,000 which they get paid for fishing licences. That is the second question I would ask the noble Earl to touch upon in his reply.
8.30 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this Bill with, however, one or two reservations. It has become increasingly apparent that there is need for co-ordination of the various sources of supply of water in England and Wales, as well as for measures to augment our water resources; and here I should like to say how interested I was by the speech of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, especially when he came on to this question of transformation of saline water, and I sincerely hope, as he does, that Her Majesty's Government will keep very much au fait with research and development on this question in the United States of America.
As other noble Lords this afternoon have referred to the Water Resources Board I propose only, at this late hour, to echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jessel. He referred to its positive character, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, would like it to be a stronger Board. I would also support the idea of fewer river authorities. It seems to me that this would have the effect of simplifying procedure with regard to the transference of water from one river basin to another, and to substantiate my remarks I should like to quote very briefly from a paper that was presented

1075
by Dr. Buchan at the symposium which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Fleck. This gentleman said:
"Larger units would necessarily have to be based on rivers but a single river basin does not everywhere form an ideal unit. The formation of a group of basins would in some instances secure a better balance between surface and underground resources and also ensure that the unit was self-supporting in relation to the domestic, agricultural and industrial demand likely to be made on it for a long time ahead."
In this context, it is interesting to note, as has been mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Fleck, that over 80 years ago five of the authors of essays which were presented to the Royal Society of Arts recommended 14 divisions, and again to-day we see, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jessel, that the Federation of British Industries also recommend 14 divisions, or authorities as they are called in the Bill. I feel that the task of the Water Resources Board would then also be facilitated. As the Board will have to consider the needs of England and Wales as a whole, such action as it will become apparent to the Board will need to be taken could I feel be more effectively taken if there were a smaller number of authorities.
With regard to the basis of control of abstraction by minimum acceptable flows, how can an authority know what industry's requirements are if, as laid down in the Bill in Clause 19, there is to be prior consultation only with the following bodies: the statutory water undertakers, the internal drainage boards, navigation authorities and the Central Electricity Generating Board, before a draft statement can be made by the authority and submitted to the Minister?
While accepting the need for a licensing system, such licences, I feel should, in the case of established abstractions, confer upon the holder the right to abstract to the full extent to which he has done in the past. I regret to be somewhat repetitive with regard to this aspect of the problem we are considering to-day; it has already been mentioned much more ably than I can by my noble friend Lord Fleck, but I think it is an important one. He stressed industry's needs, quoting a figure of around 2,000 million gallons a day—a not inconsiderable figure. Generally, these past rights were acquired by
1076
prescription based on long use, and in Appendix II of the Proudman Report these Common Law rights are referred to in detail. It would appear to me that under Clause 42 the authorities will have the power to refuse, review or curtail existing rights. If that is the case, I feel strongly that there should be adequate compensation, either in cash or in kind, at the election of the interested party. Rights to abstract water, whether underground or, indeed, surface water, are valuable rights appertaining to land; and, therefore, any diminution of property rights should be compensated for. Here I would say that I particularly have in mind the minerals industry—that is, cement, chalk, clay and so forth—for the minerals industry, in the main, satisfies its requirements by putting down boreholes to obtain supplies of underground water.
With regard to Part V of the Bill it is difficult to comment constructively until further information is provided about what is intended by Her Majesty's Government—that is, on Clauses 55 to 60 inclusive. So far, it is said that river authorities are to prepare charging schemes based on the quantity of water to be abstracted, with identical circumstances giving identical rates. I should therefore be grateful to my noble friend if, when he comes to reply, he could expand a little on paragraphs 32 to 35 in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, and also, if I understood my noble friend Lord Hastings aright, on the kind of circumstances in which charges would be diminished or nil.
Finally, my Lords, I note that there is a provision for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to secure by order that certain cases, classes of cases, appeals and references to the Minister shall lie to a tribunal which would be set up by the order itself. Would it not be preferable that such appeals or references to the Minister should lie to the Minister, provided—and I would stress the word "provided"—his staff has full knowledge of the industrial uses of water? Provided there is that qualified staff it would seem to me to be a more effective means of dealing with these appeals and cases and so forth. I may be wrong, but I believe I may be right, that these tribunals would not have the specialised knowledge to deal with such cases, and different verdicts may be

1077
reached on similar cases. Also, with time, industry and others would come to know along what lines the minds of Ministry experts were working; and that, I should have thought, should facilitate and simplify matters. However, perhaps when my noble friend comes to wind up he may be good enough to state to the House in what circumstances the Minister would be influenced to set up such a tribunal. That is all I propose to say at this stage of the Bill, except that I should like to reiterate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin (I do not wish to misquote him:"We do not want to put unfair burdens on industry."
8.42 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it is very difficult to get excited on water. We have had a very sober debate, as one would expect, but a very effective debate, largely due I think to the two very excellent opening statements we had from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and my noble friend Lord Silkin. My noble friend was, as one would have expected from an Opposition Front Bench, a little more critical and very probing. But both the opening speeches were a very wide and detailed survey of the Bill. May I also from this side of the House join in the congratulations on the two maiden speeches that we have had to-day, both of which were well delivered and well informed. Those of us who worked with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in another place expected the type of speech that we had from him. We on this side of the House and I am sure those in all quarters of the House, will hope that both noble Lords will participate in our debates from time to time.
Every range of interest (and I do not say this unkindly, because it is quite right it should be so) has been raised by various noble Lords in the debate to-day. There is certainly not one that I can think of that has not been already covered—river boards, statutory undertakings, the agricultural industry. The noble Lord, Lord Fleck, in addition to making an admirable statement on the position of industry and the attitude of industry towards this Bill, was to an extent critical of the general organisational structure of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Burden, again, brought in quite rightly the position of staffs affected by this Bill. I suppose that when speaking in this
1078
House we all try to speak from a basis of knowledge and experience. My own general trend of knowledge and experience from a local authority angle is with the statutory authorities. Therefore, I tend to look at this Bill from that point of view.
However, before I turn to deal with the Bill from that point of view, I must cross swords with the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, who, if I understood him aright, was taking an attitude in regard to British Waterways which I think is likely to be detrimental to them. In fact if I have a criticism of the Bill it is that in Clauses 2 and 4 the interests of British Waterways are not sufficiently protected, and we intend during the Committee stage to see whether we cannot make the protection a little firmer. The British Waterways Authority were set up recently as a result of the Transport Bill, which we discussed for hour after hour in this House. That Bill places upon the British Waterways Authority a responsibility for making the industry viable. The sale of water is a very valuable source of revenue to British Waterways and to interfere with that source of revenue would be detrimental to their financial standing and their financial competence. It is something which I think must be protected.
In Clause 19 there is the duty put on the river authority to consult with the inland waterways authority; but as I read Clause 19, particularly 19 (4) (c), and subsequent clauses, although there is a duty to consult with those who have responsibility for canals and waterways there is no machinery provided for in the Bill for dealing with a dispute in the event of a disagreement between the river authority and British Waterways. That again is a point we shall have to raise at the Committee stage of the Bill, unless the noble Earl when he comes to reply can tell us that there is some machinery for dealing with this.
From all quarters of the House the Government's decision to introduce legislation on water resources has been generally welcomed, and I think it has been particularly welcomed by those of your Lordships who have spoken from the point of view of the statutory authorities. In looking at this problem, I think there are two criteria by which one can judge the Bill. The first is a question

1079
of national planning. Does the Bill make workable proposals for the effective planning of the development of the water resources of the country? Secondly, the priorities of the Bill: does the Bill make provision for allocating water resources in accordance with the essential priorities, which to my mind are, first—and here perhaps is a bias because of my local authority associations—the nation's public water supply on which the public health of the nation depends; secondly, the supplies for industry and for agriculture; and thirdly, the use of water for amenity and pleasure.
If one may turn back to the first point of national planning, the proposed Water Resources Board has been welcomed from all sides of the House, and quite rightly in my view, because it is the first positive step in the setting up of machinery for the national planning of the country's water resources. Certain noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Silkin, Lord Ilford in that admirable maiden speech of his, and the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, expressed regret, in which I join, that the Water Resources Board has very limited powers, and the powers which are given to it in the Bill make it essentially an advisory body. The main powers are power to obtain information and make plans; but it has no real power, as I read the Bill, to put those plans into effect.
The Water Resources Board as proposed in the Bill is not a body which most of those associated with water distribution expected to see. To my knowledge, the British Waterworks Association has, for it must be twenty years, urged the setting up of a powerful Water Resources Board to act as the agent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, not only in preparing a national plan for the water resources of the country but also in administering, allocating and developing. The Board proposed in the Bill is, again in my view, a half-hearted acceptance of what has been proposed by the water supply industry over that long period of time.
The fundamental conception of the Bill is the local control of water resources by river authorities under a general direction from the Minister of Housing and Local Government. To the extent to which there will be a transfer of power from the centre to the
1080
perimeter, again in my view, this is a detrimental step, or a step backwards. For instance, at present water authorities obtain an order from the Minister to make new sources of water supply, or they promote a Bill in Parliament. Under the new scheme the water authorities will have to go to the river authorities for a licence to abstract, and this local machinery of licensing will replace the present central control by Parliament and the Minister.
The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, dealt with what he termed priorities in the allocation of water resources, and the fundamental change proposed by the Bill is the setting up of river authorities with wide powers over the water resources in their areas. In future, virtually no water can be taken from any source without a licence from the river authority, and such a licence will give a new legal right to the holder of the licence.
All applications for a licence made to the river authority will, under this Bill, be treated in the same way, whether it is by a statutory undertaking, an agricultural interest or an industrial interest. There are no priorities and no recognition of the special position in which the statutory water undertaker stands. The statutory authorities are in a special position, because they are responsible for the safety and adequacy of the public water supply which, as I mentioned earlier, is the foundation of public health. They have a statutory duty to give supplies of water from their mains, and because Parliament has placed upon statutory undertakings a statutory duty, it has also given them a statutory right to abstract water that they require in order that they can fulfil their obligations to the public whom they supply. Under the new scheme the existing rights of the statutory authorities to take water are to go and are to be replaced by a licence which the water authority will be obliged to obtain from the river authority.
It is true, I admit, that there axe to be licences of right. But licences of right will be subject to revocation in the same way as any other licence. Moreover, the statutory water authorities will be in no different position from any other abstracter. Any person who has been abstracting water in the past, lawfully or unlawfully, will be able to obtain a licence of right. In fact, anybody who

1081
chooses to become an abstracter of water, at any time, possibly within the next two years, will when the scheme comes into operation be able to turn his abstraction into a lawful abstraction by obtaining a licence from the river authority. To me, this is a fundamental weakness in the scheme. Clearly the existing statutory rights of statutory water undertakings should be preserved in the Bill, and the question of giving automatic licences of right to other abstracters should be further considered.
Once the new scheme comes into operation water authorities requiring new sources of supply will not, as at present, go to Parliament or to the Minister for their authority to abstract; they will be required under the Bill to go to the river authority for a licence in the same way as any other abstractor. The river authority is not obliged to give a licence to anybody, and therefore the water authority has no certainty of being able to obtain the water it needs. If the river authority refuses to give a licence, then the water authority may appeal to the Minister. Thus, the water authority may be obliged to go cap in hand from one river authority to another to get the water it needs. Again, this is a fundamental weakness in the new scheme which we shall try, if possible, to cure during the Committee stage. If the water authorities are to be denied the right to go to the Minister in the first place, then they ought to be given certain fundamental rights to abstract water against which the river authority can appeal to the Minister if that authority felt it was adversely affected.
Certain criticisms have been made to-day in regard to charges for abstraction. The charges for abstraction are fundamental to the new scheme: that the river authorities shall be able to have the power to charge for water abstraction by licence holders. Statutory water authorities are generally the highest single abstracters, and it seems likely that they will therefore be obliged to find the larger part of the money for the operations of the river authorities in the field of conservation. Clearly, in respect of their existing abstractions of water the water authorities ought not to be required to pay. Often at great expense, they have already paid for the construction of the necessary works. If the water
1082
authorities are to pay in respect of future abstractions then they ought to have adequate representation on the river authorities.
It is proposed in the Bill that the river authorities shall keep water resources accounts and that they should be obliged to appoint finance committees. This was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who made the obvious comment that one would have expected an authority such as a river authority, with the duties that it has, to appoint finance committees. But in fact, of course, the Bill places that responsibility on them by legislation. I should have thought it would be logical to require the river authority to appoint a water resources committee, and to give the statutory undertaking who have the duty of supplying and meeting the needs of the public and of industry membership of that water resources committee.
This Bill, as I said earlier in my speech, has been welcomed, although with some reservation, and it will be our duty during the Committee stage to try to improve the Bill. I hope we can; I think we can. I would reiterate the plea made by my noble friend Lord Silkin in asking the Government to allow reasonable time for the Committee stage of the Bill, because this is a technical Bill. Although we have had a large number of speakers to-day, the number of your Lordships who will be taking a detailed part in the Committee stage will, in relation to the House generally, be comparatively few. Therefore, we ought to have a Committee stage which will allow for ample discussion, consideration and preparation of the Amendments to be put before the House. My Lords, we on this side of the House support this Bill on that basis: that we will try to improve it when we get the opportunity to do so at the Committee stage.
9.2 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the close attention you have given to this highly important measure. We have had a full, useful and, at least for me, an educational debate. I think it has also been a debate which has been particularly distinguished by the two maiden speeches which we heard—extremely well-informed, if critical, maiden

1083
speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Ilford and Lord Henley.
The debate has demonstrated a number of things. The first is that your Lordships' long and passionate love affair with this precious fluid remains quite undiminished in its ardour. The second is that because your Lordships are deeply involved—drenched—in this matter, the debates on it in this House have, I think, a particular value. It was, I believe, no coincidence that the River Boards Act, 1948 (of which the present Bill is to some extent the heir and successor), was born in this House. It was again no coincidence that it was in this House, and only in this House, that the Government's White Paper on Water Conservation last May was fully debated. We have had, since the war, as your Lordships know, a large body of legislation on water. That legislation, it seems to me, owed a great deal to Amendments and improvements made in this House. I have confidence that, if anyone can improve this splendid and virtually perfect Bill, it must, in fact, be your Lordships
My third point is this. Some noble Lords, perhaps more candid or more experienced lovers of this Bill than I am, seem to have discovered some small blemishes in it. They may possibly be right. In any event, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren (and through him, if I may, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who also mentioned this point) that we shall have plenty of time to discuss this Bill, warts and all; although, of course, we must allow time for its proper consideration in another place. Be that as it may, this debate has successfully shown, I think, that it was high time we arranged the water affairs of this country on a broad, comprehensive and, indeed, national basis, and paid due regard to the need to conserve our water. The debate has shown that your Lordships believe, with the Government, that that principle is plumb right. It has also demonstrated the fact that, even given a full Parliamentary programme, your Lordships endorse the Government's view that we are right to treat this matter, and the need for legislation upon it, as one of real urgency and not just wait for something to turn up, like Godot, or a flood or a drought.
1084
Earlier to-day (and looking at the clock I must confess, rather wistfully, that it seems quite a long time ago) my noble friend and colleague led your Lordships with cogency and lucidity through the watery maze of this Bill, with its 119 Clauses and 11 Schedules. My Lords, I do not propose to do so again; nor, at this hour, can I answer all the questions which have been put to me. So, if I may, in winding up I will confine myself to certain broad themes which seem to have come out in the debate this afternoon and evening, and to answering those few detailed points to which I think I know the answers.
The first theme on which I should like to touch is the matter of amenity. I do that quite deliberately, not only because your Lordships' love affair with amenity is almost as passionate and prolonged as it is with water, and I think that has become clear also in our debate to-day, but also because I think it is quite obvious that the results which flow from this legislation in time—the great works of conservation which this country needs, and will have—could have a tremendous impact upon the beauty of some of the most beautiful and remote parts of this country. The rain in Spain may fall upon the plain, but, in Britain, it tends to fall upon the Celtic fringe. But, of course, a great deal will depend upon how these great works are sited, how they are designed, how they are landscaped, and all the rest of it. All I wish to emphasise this evening is that the Government fully recognise this point. If we did not have this Bill we should, of course, still need water conservation; but, without this Bill, the conservation measures would be quite unco-ordinated and therefore the total impact upon our countryside that much more serious.
If I may quote the example, say, of a water undertaking wishing to build a big reservoir, it would still, if this Bill becomes law, need planning permission for those works, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pointed out. It also will need either the consent of the Minister under Section 23 of the 1945 Water Act, or the consent of Parliament through Private Bill machinery. Here I should like to make it clear to those noble Lords who have asked about this, that, as I understand it, the Private Bill machinery in this respect will be quite unaffected and quite unimpaired by this Bill. Moreover, the position will be much the same

1085
for a river authority which itself wishes to undertake major conservation works.
However, in addition to all this, there is the amenity clause, Clause 93, which, whatever has been said in this House to-day, is. I think, pretty far-reaching and comprehensive. It certainly lays a clear duty on everyone concerned to lake into account the very detailed, minute considerations, including the sort of nature conservancy points to which the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, quite rightly drew attention. Again, in determining the minimum acceptable flows river authorities will be required to have due regard, as a result of subsection (5) of Clause 19, to the character of the inland water and its surroundings. That again will inevitably bring in amenity considerations.
Certain noble Lords have felt that, from the amenity point of view, the defences in this Bill could perhaps be strengthened. That may possibly be so, and, if there are Amendments which they wish to bring forward in that respect, we can look at, them when they come. But so far as I am concerned, I would claim that in this Bill the Government have shown a due and proper attention to these very important considerations of amenity.
My Lords, the Bill necessarily represents a balance—it does, in fact, preserve a proper balance, as I think my noble friend Lord Waldegrave termed it. I am not altogether surprised that noble Lords who speak with particular knowledge of particular interests which may be affected have tended to criticise it so far as that particular interest was concerned. Nor have I been surprised that, in the nature of things, those criticisms have tended somewhat to cancel each other out. We have, for example, heard a good deal this afternoon—and quite rightly so—about the possible effects, the deleterious effects, of this Bill upon industry. The noble Lord, Lord Fleck, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I think, referred to certain aspects of it as bordering on confiscation. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye feared that in this respect the Bill might be the handmaiden of the needs of industry. There was quite a difference of view between noble Lords here.
1086
May I give my view? It is true that, like other abstracters, industrialists will need to obtain a licence from the river authority before taking or impounding water. But this, my Lords, is not confiscation without compensation of industry's unassailable legal rights to water, as I read in an admittedly well-informed letter which appeared in The Times recently, and which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Jessel. The Bill says merely that industry must apply for a licence in the same way as everyone else. If the industrial abstraction is an existing one, there will be a licence of right; and the basis of this licence of right will be fundamentally that recommended in the Proudman Committee Report. Of course, we recognise that industry ought not to be cut off in midstream, as it were, and the Bill ensures that this will not happen.
This seems to me, my Lords, a very odd form of confiscation. On the contrary, far from being confiscatory, the licensing system should be, I would claim, of material benefit to industry. Once a licence has been obtained, there will be no question, in the vast majority of cases, of an abstraction being challenged in the counts as it can now be. No longer will industrialists have to rely on Common Law or prescriptive rights; and to industrialists who wish to expand this can be a very important advantage. And remember, my Lords (and no one, of course, knows this better than the noble Lord, Lord Fleck), that many of the growth industries in this country are just those industries which have the biggest appetite for water. I believe that a further gain to industry is the establishment of the river authorities, with a clear duty to consider industrialists' needs for water, and to plan to meet them; and industry, of course, will have its proper voice in the affairs of each river authority. Subsection (3) (e) of Clause 6 makes it quite clear that the membership will include persons knowledgeable tin their needs, and it is not going to be necessarily just one member: the Bill clearly states one or more, as circumstances dictate. Apart from this there will be many other members of the river authorities with interests and knowledge similar to that of industrialists, especially, of course, those representatives from the urban

1087
authorities. I would claim, therefore, that the interests of industry are in general fully and adequately safeguarded by this Bill.
I would also make the same claim so far as the statutory water undertakings are concerned, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said, and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has said. To obtain and impound water they will, of course, in time require to obtain a licence from the river authority, and not, as formerly, from my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but if there is difficulty they will be able to come to the Minister on appeal. The river authority will, in any event, be acting in the light of an assessment of general resources and demand, to which the undertakers will themselves have contributed, and, of course, under the direction of the new Water Resources Board which will have the national picture in view. There is no withdrawal of the undertakers' present rights to take water, and no invasion of their responsibility for treating and distributing it. Nor is there any prohibition on the construction in future of impounding and storage works for the sole use of a water undertaking, if that fits in with the plan.
I recognise that the statutory water undertakers have expressed some aversion to the whole idea that they should be beholden to a river authority for licences to obtain water. But they seem to underrate the position which members experienced in public water supply will hold on those authorities, and they assume, in my view quite wrongly, that the authorities will be motivated by sectional interests. I personally cannot accept that. I believe, on the contrary, that the clear duties imposed on the authorities, coupled with the right of appeal to the Minister, afford a perfectly effective safeguard of the undertakers' admittedly extremely important interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me a question in that respect, about the association of water undertakings with the river authorities. I personally believe that it is both useful and desirable Chat a proper, practical association between the two should be achieved. But I do not think that the sort of combination of the two authorities which at one
1088
time I understood him to be advocating is at all desirable, since their functions are, in my view, quite different.
What about the farming community, whose thirst for water, especially in Southern and Eastern England, is going to become increasingly great in future decades? Here it is true that the taking of water for spray irrigation from whatever source will require a licence and will be chargeable. But the charging arrangements—and I will, when I come to it quite shortly, answer the specific points which the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, put to me on that—will enable full recognition to be given to the provision of associated local storage in farm reservoirs, which will have the great virtue, of course, of enabling the taking of water from the river to be largely confined to the time when the rivers are full. I know, of course, that the farming community may have hoped that the coming of water conservation organisation might mean the end of taking farmland for impounding reservoirs. I do not think this can be so, as I am sure the noble Lord would recognise. But I think that proper conservation measures can, and will, mean that the most effective and intensive use is made of any site taken for a reservoir.
Before finishing what I wanted to say about this balance of interests between the main bodies concerned, I should like to echo the words which I believe both my noble friend Lord Waldegrave and my noble friend Lord Malmesbury used. It seems to me that this is the time for real co-operation between all the interests concerned, and for the burying of any hatchets which there may be lying around.
Could I now turn to the Water Resources Board? In our debate last May a number of spokesmen suggested that the Water Resources Board was rather a poor, weak thing, and that it should at least have sharper executive teeth. I was not, therefore, entirely surprised to hear the same point made in our debate to-day. Now I have always thought, my Lords, that there were strong and powerful reasons for trying to shed from the Minister concerned as much of his promotional activity as possible, because there is always a danger that, when a Minister is promoting big water schemes,

1089
he will get into a very embarrassing position, for he also has an appellate function. It is quite possible that he may have promoted, or have helped to promote, a scheme a month or so ago which then, in another capacity, he will have, as it were, to judge. That has always seemed to me one very strong reason for "shuffling off" as much of the promotional activity from the Minister concerned as possible on to the Water Resources Board.
Now promotion in its widest sense—promotion, for example, of these great conservation schemes which will be coming—is likely to become increasingly important in the future, and that is why I welcome the fact (and let there be no doubt that it is a fact) that the new Board will have clear-cut promotional responsibilities. I think this was pretty clearly explained by my noble friend earlier this afternoon. He said, if I got his words aright, that this was not a paper exercise. This Bill makes it a duty for the river authority both to formulate schemes and to carry out schemes implementing the recommendations of the Board, and that duty of the river authority to implement the recommendations of the Board is clearly set out in subsection (1) (c) of Clause 14 of the Bill. I think it was the sort of power which several noble Lords were advocating should be placed upon the Water Resources Board (or the Central Authority, as it was then called) in our debate last May, and perhaps it may have surprised some of the more cynical Members of your Lordships' House to note that we have in fact taken their advice and have given the Board this clear directive power over river authorities.
My Lords, although I would urge that it is right that the Board should have these clear-cut responsibilities, I would suggest at the same time that it is equally right that the ultimate authority for sanctioning schemes should still rest in the Minister. As I explained in our debate earlier in May, there is a dichotomy between the principle of Ministerial accountability to Parliament and that of an entirely independent executive board; and, if you think that it is right, on a matter so important and vital, and which touches everybody so intimately, as water, that the Minister should be ultimately responsible and accountable to
1090
Parliament, then you cannot opt for a total executive board.
Some noble Lords have also criticised the composition of the Board as being a little weak. On that, I really should like to say only two or three things. The first is that, although provision is made in the Bill for either part-time or full-time members of the Board, it is left quite open and the Government have not pre-judged that issue. I think that is right. In this sort of area, it is sensible to retain a degree of flexibility. What is important is that we should obtain the services of first-class men on this new Board. What is important is that both Parliament and Government Departments, industry, agriculture and everybody else, should have full confidence in it, and they will not have full confidence unless the Board is really well equipped in its personnel, both Board members and staff.
On that point I was greatly impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, said in our debate last May. I think it was a great pity that he was not able to join in our debate to-day. He suggested, as some noble Lords may remember, that there should be six special forms of skill and expertise represented on the Water Resources Board. I suppose we should all agree that it is vitally important that the Board should have a first-class chairman with energy, drive and management ability. I would merely suggest that it is not entirely coincidental that, apart from the chairman, the Bill provides for six other members; and I think I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I have no doubt that at least one of those members will be a Welshman. So much for the Board itself.
As for its staff, there again all I should like to say is that, so far as the Government are concerned, we are determined that the Board shall be equipped with a really good, full-time and highly-qualified staff. If it is not, it will not be able to undertake all that is required of it—and a great deal is going to be required of that Board, including, of course, the very important research functions and responsibilities which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, my noble friend Lord Malmesbury and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. On the question of research, I

1091
think it was valuable for us to have those three well-informed speeches stressing the need for research in this field.
Noble Lords referred in turn to our need to pay due attention to the possibilities of salt water distillation. I would certainly not dissent from that. The noble Lord, Lord Fleck, referred to the need to pay due attention to the possibilities opened up in the field of artificial recharge of aquifiers, and I would not dissent from that. He also referred to the need for the complementary use of surface and ground water. All that is recognised; and the stimulation and coordination, to some extent, of research in that type of field will come within the orbit of the Water Resources Board, as it will of the Committee on Hydro-logical Research. In reply to my noble friend Lord Malmesbury, I think I can there assure him that there is no doubt that the Water Resources Board will be represented on that important Committee.
What about the river authorities? Several noble Lords have again urged that the authorities we are proposing to set up under Clause 3 and Schedule 1 are too many, too small and too weak: but your Lordships will appreciate that that clause and that Schedule do not represent the law of the Medes and Persians. If there is real and continuing force behind this argument fox more amalgamation, and if that is supported by our experience, then the machinery of Clause 10 for making further amalgamations can, of course, operate. Meanwhile, I think we must remember that we are not starting out here de novo. The interests of land drainage and fisheries may well call for a rather smaller area than conservation pur sang and they cannot be ignored. It would be wrong for me, I think, to comment in any detail on a Second Reading on particular amalgamation proposals.
We heard an admirable and forceful maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on the proposal to amalgamate the Lancashire and Cumberland River Boards. We heard equally forceful comment from my noble friend Lord Woolton on a proposal to marry East and West Sussex, which seemed to him to be virtually unmarriageable. There will be plenty of time later on in the course of our discussions on this Bill
1092
to justify, or to fail to justify, particular proposals.
A point of principle was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, to which should like briefly to refer. He asked why we were adopting a different procedure under this clause of the Bill from the procedure laid down in the 1948 River Boards Act, which provided an elaborate procedure of inquiry. I think the answer is about threefold. When we legislated for river boards in 1948 we were dealing with a number of authorities whose functions had been discharged by a number of entirely different bodies covering quite a variety of areas. In some parts of the country these functions had not been discharged at all. The determination of areas for river boards was therefore a major operation. Now of course we have to a large extent a ready made pattern—that of the river board areas. This is known to be perfectly suitable for the transferred functions. What we have now to do is to make some adjustment for the new function of conservation. We have felt that in this situation it was right for us to set out the proposed new areas in the Bill itself, so that Parliament itself could decide on them. One of the advantages of this is that it will enable Parliament to discuss comprehensively how many areas there should be, and how they should be divided. The advantage of this procedure has been shown, even at Second Reading, by the well-informed comments we have had from noble Lords.
Then there is the actual composition of the river authorities. Here again, a number of noble Lords have pressed for them to be smaller. All I can say is that while the Government initially saw all the advantages of having small river authorities, we found, after due consideration, that it would be impossible to give sufficient representation to local authorities and other interests with river authorities of only 10 to 15 members, as we should have liked. In the circumstances, I would submit that the present balance is about right. But of course, over all this, and over the actual appointments the Minister will make to river authorities, I would not dissent from the ideas which the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, urged: that there should be some consultation with the local authorities or

1093
interests concerned, though I would suggest that we might be wise to avoid formal statutory obligations. Let us by all means have informal consultation which everybody would desire, but I am sure that many noble Lords would grant at least in certain respects, that as soon as all this gets unduly formalised then we start to slide down the slippery slope which leads to "Buggins's Turn."
There was one further point regarding composition on which I should like to touch. Several noble Lords, including Lord De Ramsey, urged that the importance of land drainage was so great it should be a mandatory requirement on each river authority to establish a special drainage committee. There is, of course, no mandatory requirement of that type in the River Boards Act, and I would urge, my Lords, that what was right in that Act is right in this Bill. Land drainage is obviously a vital function of these new authorities; but so are fisheries, so is conservation and so indeed is pollution. And if we are to establish a mandatory land drainage committee, by the same token we should establish a mandatory fisheries committee, a mandatory pollution committee and a mandatory conservation committee. I think it is wrong for Parliament to be too grandmotherly over this sort of thing. Let us allow these new authorities a certain freedom of action; let us allow them to manage their own business and paddle their own canoes whether by functional committees or by area committees or by whatever arrangements may be chosen, so long as they are sensible and best for their own needs.
Finally, I would refer to charging. I have been asked a large number of questions about charging. I have not the time to answer them all but I should like to say this. It is of course very difficult at this stage to be precise about the level of charges in the absence of full information about the amount actually abstracted at present or about remission from charges which will be granted to abstracters who have built their own conservation works. However, given, as the Bill provides, charges based on quantities authorised to be abstracted, we believe that the various river authorities should have no difficulty whatever in making ends meet even without the type of Exchequer grants which the
1094
noble Lord, Lord Champion, was urging we should have included in the Bill. We believe they will have no serious difficulty in making ends meet without the imposition of charges in excess of a few pence, a very few pence, per thousand gallons abstracted from rivers and charges at a lower figure, a much lower figure, for abstraction of ground water and water for cooling purposes, which as your Lordships know can then be restored to the river. Our estimates show it should be perfectly possible to sustain the sort of conservation effort we believe the nation needs without pricing water conservancy out of the market.
The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, urged that where a farmer builds his own reservoir and takes water into it at times of high flow he should not be charged anything. He also suggested that charges should be based on quantities actually abstracted, rather than on quantities authorised. I can certainly go a rather long way with him on that first point. Quite clearly, abstraction in winter at times of high flow will merit lower charges than at times of low flow. We want to encourage precisely this sort of thing, and clearly the best encouragement is a differential and favourable charge. But at this stage I should be rather chary about agreeing to the principle of no charge at all. On the second point, I should be even more chary. I am prepared to look at this point, but I cannot at present see how an authority could possibly see where it stands, balance its accounts, or make its plans unless it could base charges on authorised abstraction. This is a point that we shall be glad to look into.
My Lords, I am very conscious that a great many noble Lords who have had the kindness to wait to the end of this debate have not had their questions answered. I hope that, in view of the time, they will forgive me. I will undertake, however to answer any questions, by correspondence or personally, if noble Lords wish particularly to have replies to them. But I hope that T have said enough to convince your Lordships that in our proposals we have tried to do justice, and no more or no less than justice, to all the many interests concerned with water. We have had to build upon a very complex structure

1095
both of existing legislation and of established rights. I should be the last to claim that we have succeeded at this stage in every particular, or that the Bill is entirely without its warts. There will be plenty of opportunity for dealing at the later stages of the Bill with any possible warts or blemishes.
What I do claim, however, is that this Bill is sound in its basic essentials, and that, if passed into law substantially unamended, it will ensure that the most vital of our national resources is managed and developed in a balanced manner and in the best interests of the community as a whole.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of six Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Tuesday last, to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but not to be delivered out except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten oclock.